The laws with regard to shootings

canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Ok. So a nutzoid brings his firearms into a theater and begins shooting up the place.


There are three armed civilians in that theater.


The bad gunman (wait, I don't think "gunmen" are ever good are they?) manages to pick off a few people before he is noticed by the other three, but mind you the other three don't know of each other. One of them fires a shot at the original gunman and misses, hitting a little girl. The second vigilante fires wildly and hits another innocent. Now the first vigilante doesn't know that the gunman is acting alone but thinks that the second vigilante is an accomplice and shoots at him as well, killing him. the first vigilante finally gets a good shot off and puts down the gunman so that first guy goes over and disarms the gunman, as he is doing so the police arrive and thinking that the vigilante is the shooter, kills him.

Now we have a dead gunman, two dead vigilantes and four "innocents" - oh what the hell, make it 5. WHo is guilty of murder? Are more guns really an answer to the problem here?
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
You've crafted a "worst-case" scenario, a gun banner's wet dream.

Count it as a propaganda win by media editors that "gunman" has become a bad word. And your choice of "vigilante" is Pre-Judged ... no need to flake the rust off your moral centers; just add Nescafé and stir.

But the law would be rather simple in this instance. The two "vigilantes" each murdered someone, as did the policeman. If the original assailant survives, he gets to claim the balance of dead. cn
 
420God

420God

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
Now we have a dead gunman, two dead vigilantes and four "innocents" - oh what the hell, make it 5. WHo is guilty of murder? Are more guns really an answer to the problem here?
Click to expand...

On Friday, July 20, 2012, a mass shooting occurred inside of a Century movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, during a midnight screening of the film The Dark Knight Rises. A gunman, dressed in tactical clothing, set off tear gas grenades and shot into the audience with multiple firearms, killing 12 people and injuring 59 others.


According to you more guns would have helped.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
Ok. So a nutzoid brings his firearms into a theater and begins shooting up the place.


There are three armed civilians in that theater.


The bad gunman (wait, I don't think "gunmen" are ever good are they?) manages to pick off a few people before he is noticed by the other three, but mind you the other three don't know of each other. One of them fires a shot at the original gunman and misses, hitting a little girl. The second vigilante fires wildly and hits another innocent. Now the first vigilante doesn't know that the gunman is acting alone but thinks that the second vigilante is an accomplice and shoots at him as well, killing him. the first vigilante finally gets a good shot off and puts down the gunman so that first guy goes over and disarms the gunman, as he is doing so the police arrive and thinking that the vigilante is the shooter, kills him.

Now we have a dead gunman, two dead vigilantes and four "innocents" - oh what the hell, make it 5. WHo is guilty of murder? Are more guns really an answer to the problem here?
Click to expand...
Sounds like the script from Blazing Saddles.
 
Grandpapy

Grandpapy

Well-Known Member
Yes, they are, Ask your senator. Seems It kept the "us" from setting up shop in Russia and China. Those that cant defend...well, they conform.

Our government needs/wants more, newer, faster, shelterer, weapons because it keeps the "us" safe.

I'm confused. It cant work both ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top