As far as I know, unless you’re a law enforcement officer, you have neither the training nor the authority to shoot someone you see doing something you don’t think is right. I personally don’t want trigger-happy vigilantes being the final word on who gets shot for what in my world.
A legally armed civillian is allowed to use deadly force in the defense of their own life or the lives of others.
I knew this would be it. I almost said it in my first reply but didn’t want to be accused of religion-baiting.
They probably didn’t have it ON them, and they probably didn’t even think of it, as those are tools and not weapons.
Don’t legally carry concealable firearms? Thank you, Nancy Reagan. “Just say ‘No’ to the second amendment.”
or just ‘Don’t open this debate, again’?
Too late, we there, girlfriend.
“What if” the baby really was possesed by demons?
That’s awesome. Because obviously everyone who happens to have a legal firearm is a fucking genius and fully capable of coolly assessing any situation under extreme pressure.
Assuming demons were real ? Then, obviously, you go to an exorcist. The same as going to a doctor when a child is infected with a disease, instead of trying to beat the disease out of them.
Do you think it requires a cool-thinking genius to know if somebody is beating a baby to death? Do you think the people who were ineffectually trying to stop him were cool-thinking geniuses? Are police cool-thinking geniuses?
Police are trained. Any fool who’s never committed a felony can buy a gun.
That didn’t do the baby much good, did it?
Anybody seen vampire-peacock killer, John Ross, lately?
Pay special attention to paragraph 2.
I’ve been thinking about what I would do if I were confronted with this situation (I live in the same county). I would want to help, but it would be really scary. What if I tried and the man knocked me out and after he was done with the baby went for my young daughter in my back seat? What if he killed me, leaving my own daughter to be raised by my abusive ex?
I would probably still try to do something, but I understand the myriad of reasons why any capable bystander might not simply jump in and attack a crazed man, even if he was killing a helpless baby.
If guns were a lot easier to acquire legally, and most everyone carried one with them, they could have shot the guy.
Of course, if guns were a lot easier to acquire legally, and most everyone carried one with them, he could have shot the baby.
That’s cool. Hubby doesn’t currently own a gun. He would have done the bastard in with his hands or any nearby object.
Poor misunderstood baby-murdering son of a bitch.
Not.
OK, my bad. . . I know.
I shouldn’t open a thread titled “Not so much RO as bewilderment” and think that it might NOT actually be RO. That’s like opening up a thread titled “Not really about barely concealed rage” and think that it had anything but rage in it. But I was really curious to see how this was different than your typical RO thread and I got my answer. . . not a single, solitary thing.
So this is “Not so much threadshitting as bewilderment” – Why people don’t title their RO threads as RO?!
If you title it right, I’ll try to stay out. . .or at least not post to it. Waddaya say?
Do, or do not. There is no “try.”
Hijack but you say you won’t post in these types of threads as you’re posting in the thread? Yeah maybe the title isn’t accurate as it could be, but you read it THEN posted. Why does it matter anyway? Is no one allowed to bitch or open a thread where other people express emotions over some fucked up shit? Not like you have to pay a buck per thread you open. And to me, the OP was posting about something very RO worthy but presented it as bewildering AND fucked up, which it is.
I didn’t say that possession by demons was a bad thing. 
I don’t see a lunatic killing a baby because it’s “possessed by demons” so much a religion issue as a mental health issue. So no accusation from me.