Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Regal Cinema's new "security policy"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="soberups" data-source="post: 1803541" data-attributes="member: 14668"><p>Perhaps "Good Samaritan" was a poor choice of words on my part.</p><p></p><p>A better way to put it would be to define what is meant by "negligence".</p><p></p><p>I have no problem with the idea of holding the police....or a citizen with a carry permit....responsible for their negligent use of a gun which results in the death of an innocent person.</p><p></p><p>However...what would clearly be an act of negligence at the firing range or in a training exercise is not necessarily negligent if you are in a movie theater and James Holmes walks in with an AR-15 and starts murdering people. Under those conditions, the number one priority would have to be to stop him from murdering people by any means necessary. At least that is my opinion. <em>Your</em> opinion seems to be that the best course of action would be to do nothing, offer no resistance, and allow him to just keep murdering people until he runs out of ammo because that is somehow "safer" than an armed good guy taking a shot at him that might hit a bystander by mistake.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="soberups, post: 1803541, member: 14668"] Perhaps "Good Samaritan" was a poor choice of words on my part. A better way to put it would be to define what is meant by "negligence". I have no problem with the idea of holding the police....or a citizen with a carry permit....responsible for their negligent use of a gun which results in the death of an innocent person. However...what would clearly be an act of negligence at the firing range or in a training exercise is not necessarily negligent if you are in a movie theater and James Holmes walks in with an AR-15 and starts murdering people. Under those conditions, the number one priority would have to be to stop him from murdering people by any means necessary. At least that is my opinion. [I]Your[/I] opinion seems to be that the best course of action would be to do nothing, offer no resistance, and allow him to just keep murdering people until he runs out of ammo because that is somehow "safer" than an armed good guy taking a shot at him that might hit a bystander by mistake. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Regal Cinema's new "security policy"
Top