[huehue]

If somebody shot the crackhead instead of just staring there wouldn't even be a blog post. Problem solved.

These kind of people are going to carry weapons no matter what, and I for one don't want to be again in a situation where I'm unable to defend myself or somebody else.

I really understand the arguments behind prohibition and could agree with them, but the integrity of my loved ones comes first.

[k-mcgrady]

>> "If somebody shot the crackhead instead of just staring there wouldn't even be a blog post. Problem solved."

So you could hand over your phone and wallet to this mentally unstable person and everyone could walk away.

OR

You could shoot them, they die, and you've killed someone because you didn't want to lose $600.

If you choose the latter I really hope you don't own a gun. You're irrational and the reason they should be prohibited.

[icebraining]

Frankly, I fear less the robber who just wants my cellphone and wallet than the "good samaritan" that would start shooting in a crowded place like the one she was in.

[talmir]

If somebody had tried to shoot the crackhead it is very likely that an innocent bystander would have recieved the bullet instead depending on the skill of the marksman and the movement of the target.

Guns dont protect often (or the USA would be relatively crime free). They just give you an excellent opertunity to hurt/kill innocents instead of the attacker.

[kubiiii]

The main argument is that its more likely to hurt your loved ones with your own weapons.

[Derbasti]

Really? And how is shooting the crackhead not murder?