You took it to a whole other level with the word allowed there, but he was pretty clear about who shouldn’t have a gun - someone that thinks their gun is the only way out of a dirty look or a total non event with some scary looking people.
There are a few bizzare comments on this thread that I would hope don’t actually represent how these people view and plan to handle deadly force outside of an internet thread. Maybe different levels of thought going into this.
I just woke up, and I'm headed to work, so I haven't read the other 2 pages of replies. I agree with everything you said, or at least don't find cause for objection.
My point in using the word "allowed" there was to respond to his statement. His comment of "the guy
deserved to be shot" seems to indicate definite sarcasm and serious disagreement with some other comments, tied to further comments about people who are exactly the type who shouldn't have a gun. He said "in the first place", which clearly can be interchanged with "at all", in the context of his statement.
If one is to pass judgement on someone who hasn't seemingly broken any laws, I'm interested in what they think about ownership of such things. I said "allowed", because we all know that there are people who have guns that do not own them legally, yet the indication of his comments is directed towards the legal, law-abiding person, who likely went through all the proper processes to own a gun.
If the government officials in charge of permitting (allowing) gun ownership are making a mistake, as his post would indicate that he believes, then I'm left to wonder who he believes is legitimately able to own a gun. If it's only law enforcement, isn't that a problematic problem with his point of view? The very people charged with allowing citizens to legally own firearms cannot be trusted to do the job accurately, yet they're the only people to have access. See what I'm saying? I'm only wanting people to think about what the outcome is if they follow through with their thoughts, AND I also want to see/hear who they believe should be the bearer of said weapons.
All countries used to freely bear arms, and the control of them started somewhere. I'd like people to think through their opinions on this, on both sides. This isn't something to be settled with emotional knee-jerk reactions, and yet, like you pointed out, there's a few bizarre comments in this thread - I too would hope some don't actually represent these people and that it's just the keyboard warrior coming out.
There's some small thoughts here, and there seems to be a "my side must win, and pound you into the dust", without actually reading what people said, and expanding our thoughts to have a discussion. We, as a society, used to be able to hold contrary opinions and still be able to deal with each other. Nobody is challenging anyone to think through and opine and win over through ideas to "their side", and I'm only wanting people to think before shooting - both gun AND mouth. I'm guilty of it myself, lest anyone think I find myself blameless and pure. I try to shut up or at least think quite a bit before posting on hot topics like this, but I've been guilty of it, even on here, and I'd like to see this place remain friendly. This topic is clearly headed towards politics, and I'm not a fan of inviting it onto the forum here, but that's not my call to make. The best I can offer is to try to make people think about their posts, and I'm thankful to the admins for adding the ignore feature, as I see this going down that path. I've got enough issues to deal with in real life without arguing with the awesome friends hidden inside my computer. We can do that over a few drinks if/when we meet up on the water somewhere, and enjoy these discussions where they're far better fleshed out - face-to-face - and you can see how something is affecting the other person simply by the look on their face.
That's a lot to say "Thanks for the measured response". I get the feeling you're a great guy, and that we could have some great discussions over a beer or twelve, in person.