Who said anything about shooting him?
I didn't.
You assumed that's what I meant. What I said was basically an armed populace is far less likely to be the victim of crime. This guy might not have chosen to become a rabid dog on the loose had he known he would be in the presence of several armed citizens well trained in the use of their firearms instead of a field full of defenseless sheep begging to be taken advantage of.
You won't consider for a second that criminals that know they will come up against an unarmed populace have no fear.
If I was carrying in that situation and that crazy motherfucker approached me or my family, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to drop him after warning him. I'd shoot him in the leg(s) first and if that didn't work, I'd take it to the next level.
You see, I'm choosing to take care of myself instead of waiting forever for the police to show up 24 minutes later with the yellow crime scene tape and the body bags for the victims. You seem to follow the liberal media spin machine that buries the stories and statistics of just how many crimes are thwarted by armed citizens.
It's a shame that this is the case. It should be common knowledge. Criminals would be less likely to commit crime if they actually knew just how many armed people prevented themselves from turning into victims. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible, law abiding people who don't use their weapons offensively. You buy into the myth that a gun is not a defensive weapon and that an armed citizen is automatically dangerous and incapable of handling the situation.
You couldn't be more wrong.
