First off, I didn’t refer to him as a “disaster relief worker”. I said he was doing disaster relief work. Not sure why I thought he was doing disaster relief work. Oh that’s right, because he was.
Sounds like this is a bit of Negative Gun News. Because, you know, it doesn’t seem like the fact that he wasn’t legally able to possess a gun was much of an impediment to his becoming a Bad Guy With A Gun.
It matters to my assessment of what news I consider to be positive. People being killed is not something that I consider to be positive, even if they are committing crimes. I see these situations as tragedies all the way around – I don’t celebrate the fact that that the crime ended in the death of the perpetrator.
I should add that this assessment has nothing to do with the fact that a gun is involved. I wouldn’t consider it positive news if someone killed a burglar with a knife, or a knitting needle, or by pushing him down the stairs.
No matter how many people call a dog’s tail a leg, it still isn’t a leg. There was no disaster, period. Show us the devastation and human suffering that all the media slept through. The only reason to call him a disaster relief worker–pardon me, that he was doing disaster relief work;)–is to create more sympathy for him than he deserves.
Did you read the article? It says, as you yourself quoted, “he is sometimes hired to do disaster relief”, not that he was in this case, because he wasn’t. I guess you just forgot to highlight “sometimes”. Your other two links are to the same slanted story. One site just copied the other verbatim but you quoted different parts so it looks like two separate stories. Any other cheap stunts you want to perform for us?
What I really fail to see is how a guy who gets into trouble by not bothering to learn the law is a good gun story. Even more to the point, as it’s already been pointed out by a few other posters, how is killing people, for whatever reason, good?
This line of thinking baffles me. I feel exactly the opposite. The tragedy isn’t in the violent death that was the deserved conclusion of their miserable scumbag existence while in the act of committing or attempting to commit a violent crime against innocent people, it’s the process that led them to that way of thinking and acting.
The good part of the story is not that the person violated the asinine laws of NJ, but that he received a pardon. Your second question was answered in post #12.
One other semi-related note I forgot to mention, or maybe I remembered but thought it was too old. Another pardon in NJ, Shaneen Allen.
So the positive news is that many gun owners are ignorant of the laws about carrying guns and sometimes their ignorance is at least allowed for? Or are you secretly campaigning for much better required training before people are permitted to carry guns in any state. If so I applaud you.
I would agree that the process that led to an individual becoming a criminal is tragic.
But I strongly disagree that violent death is a deserved conclusion. This is what I meant when I said that we don’t have the death penalty for burglary (here in California, the death penalty is only for murder or treason). And I can’t possibly say that someone had a miserable scumbag existence because of one criminal act. I guess dehumanizing people as scumbags makes it easier to justify killing them, but to me the violent death of a human being is still tragic.
Even in CA, the law recognizes a person’s ability to defend themselves or others with force including deadly force if necessary. So while we don’t have the death penalty for burglary, it is a recognized possibility that the law sanctions when it involves a person defending themselves or others.
And to head off the questions about what is the positive news here, the known gang member with a long criminal record was able to get a gun! The positive news is that the homeowner was able to defend himself, and turn the tables on the people attacking him.
Like I said before, the police reaction was excessively harsh, and I assume that’s why Christie pardoned them, not because the law is asinine. It’s there for a reason that you’re not acknowledging. Who knows how many New Jersey deaths have been prevented because of the law? If New Mexico had a similar law, maybe the four-year-old girl killed in the road rage shooting would still be alive.
Now, what about the fair-and-balanced:rolleyes: ConcealedNation.com article describing Brian Fletcher as doing disaster relief work? Do you still think he was?
You’ve offered nothing that is persuasive to change the position I stated in post #22. I actually don’t care since it’s a hijack, but NJ was clearly facing severe storm damage at that time and both the Office of Emergency Management and FEMA were involved with the State Police. You could make a claim that the storm response wasn’t as swift if an actual state of emergency was declared, but I think that’s besides the point. Fletcher was asked to go to NJ as part of his job, he was arrested on non violent gun related charges that would not be a crime in his home state, and he was pardoned. Those are the salient facts of this story. Not quite sure why you’re interested in the other minutiae - don’t mistake this for thinking I want to know because I don’t.
I’d say it’s positive news that neither the homeowners being intruded upon nor the employees of the restaurant were shot or killed by the bad guys.
There is absolutely no way to know what’s going to happen once someone has broken into your home or pulled a gun in a robbery. This is why shooting robbers and intruders is justified. Too many times the victims in such circumstances are murdered to eliminate witnesses, and/or to prevent the victims from calling the police in order to assure maximum time to get away. It isn’t that the robbers “deserve” being killed even though they haven’t killed anybody (yet), it’s that by their actions they’ve placed innocent people in jeopardy of their lives. In other words, self-preservation (for themselves or to protect employees and patrons in the case of workplace shootings) is the reason for their being killed, not because the particular crimes they committed or are trying to commit warrant it on their own.
Agreed it’s tragic but it is certainly a better outcome than the alternative where the perpetrator is successful and/or harms innocent people. Wouldn’t you agree?
Even more to the point, as it’s already been pointed out by a few other posters, how is killing people, for whatever reason, good?