GoOfY-FoOt
New member
Here's the story on a local NBC News website...
http://www.wesh.com/news/28414789/d...l=orl_12pm&tmi=orl_12pm_1_10550207012011&ts=H
There appears to be a startling trend spiraling out of control, here.
According to the article, there have been several other incidents at this very range, which happens to be one of the largest indoor ranges in the area.
I have two questions to discuss:
1) Is it the publicity, accessability, or simply the location in relation to the population, that causes this particular range to be singled out by these folks?
2) How could reasonable steps be taken to avoid this type of negative situation, without shutting down the range/rentals or infringing on people who aren't in such a mental state?
This basis of one's mental frame of mind, in regard to civil rights, has come into focus during another fairly recent event involving firearms accessability. And to be quite honest, it is extremely perplexing.
On one hand, the belief that a person bent on taking their own, or someone elses life, has a plethora of choices available to them, no matter how many laws get passed, is completely accurate, IMO.
On the other, someone who is intent on harming themselves or others, and is an obvious danger, must be dealt with accordingly.
Where does one draw the line, where the law-abiding's civil liberties come into play?
http://www.wesh.com/news/28414789/d...l=orl_12pm&tmi=orl_12pm_1_10550207012011&ts=H
There appears to be a startling trend spiraling out of control, here.
According to the article, there have been several other incidents at this very range, which happens to be one of the largest indoor ranges in the area.
I have two questions to discuss:
1) Is it the publicity, accessability, or simply the location in relation to the population, that causes this particular range to be singled out by these folks?
2) How could reasonable steps be taken to avoid this type of negative situation, without shutting down the range/rentals or infringing on people who aren't in such a mental state?
This basis of one's mental frame of mind, in regard to civil rights, has come into focus during another fairly recent event involving firearms accessability. And to be quite honest, it is extremely perplexing.
On one hand, the belief that a person bent on taking their own, or someone elses life, has a plethora of choices available to them, no matter how many laws get passed, is completely accurate, IMO.
On the other, someone who is intent on harming themselves or others, and is an obvious danger, must be dealt with accordingly.
Where does one draw the line, where the law-abiding's civil liberties come into play?