quasi Report This Comment Date: December 16, 2012 06:49PM
[
www.kgw.com]
jgoins Report This Comment Date: December 17, 2012 12:17PM
His decision not to fire was right for him and his situation. If the gunman
had not been finished with his killings then his decision would have been wrong.
The decision to shoot or not shoot is a multifaceted one and can only be made
by the one who is holding the gun. Could he have moved a few inches to one side
and have a clear shot, possibly, but only he would know for sure. I think I
would have taken the shot but I am sure of my accuracy and have done it before
under pressure. The security guard I am sure he has never taken a life before
and that too was weighing heavy on his mind at the time as it should. He did
the right thing and fortunately it turned out ok and his decision not to fire
did not cause any other deaths.
jgoins Report This Comment Date: December 18, 2012 12:50PM
Despite all of this evidence, the magical thinking behind gun-free zones is
unlikely to be questioned in the wake of the Newtown killings. Having such zones
gives people a false sense of security, and woe to the politician or business
owner who now suggests that a “gun-free zone” revert back to what critics
would characterize as “a wild, wild West” status.
The "wild west" argument just doesn't hold up because the wild west
was not as wild as the movies depict. Killings were not as prevalent as the
studios would have us believe. A little research shows that killings per capita
were lower than they are today and probably even lower than even in Great
Britain today.
Well Fox News channel Fox and Friends has discussed much of that article this
weekend.