|
Northern Alberta | I have been following this thread a bit and, as is typical, some guys get it, some don't, some never will. I find it interesting that there are some here that keep making accusations towards Kyle with "why would he go there with a gun if not to kill someone" but they don't apply that same "logic" to the guy Kyle shot that was carrying a gun (Glock IIRC). In the instance, we have one guy, clearly out to cause problems carrying a gun (ILLEGALLY I might add) and he gets a pass for it and another who was there to protect, carrying a gun LEGALLY but THAT is the guy that was there just to kill people??. The question has been asked "why would he choose an AR?". Maybe as a deterrent. A rifle (of any kind) is FAR more visible than a handgun and therefore is FAR more likely to deter someone from causing trouble since they will no doubt SEE the gun. There has been some discussion on the practical use of an AR (as if that is relevant in any way) but those that question it's practical use, STILL seem to ignore the fact that exert one of their argument could be more accurately applied to the Glock that the thug was carrying, again, giving the thug a pass and chastising the "good guy". Then there are those that ask "why would he go there at all?" (usually the same ones that focus on Kyle but give the thugs a pass). There is a saying "All that is needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing". | |
|
So if you would bring a gun to a riot for protection
