3 ms·
Often, people like this don't have the right to bear arms. It's not described whether the victim was a permanent resident but considering when he graduated from
by arjie 10y ago
Often, people like this don't have the right to bear arms. It's not described whether the victim was a permanent resident but considering when he graduated from college, I think it's reasonable to say that he wasn't.
Being an Indian national, he would have had to have waited 8 years or more to become a permanent resident. In that time, he would have had his visa renewed repeatedly. His visa is likely to have been an H1-B.
I suppose, then, the questions are: Are you in favour of foreigners in America bearing arms? Or are you in favour of a faster permanent residency process?
Both of those things are the only real way that the victim could have legally carried a firearm.
- nsxwolf 10y agoI am in favor of legal immigrants carrying arms provided they can pass all the other legal requirements for ownership and carry. Even still, it need not be just the intended target victim that is armed. You need a critical mass of enough bystanders having the capability to defend others. That is the only way to provide a chance at an effective defense as well as a strong psychological deterrent.
- Mithaldu 10y agoTalk to soldiers, talk to police officers, talk to marines, talk to any professional who's ever experienced actual battle. Ask them: Would you feel confident to use your gun when you're relaxed in a social setting and someone suddenly starts shooting? (I won't spoil the answer for you, plenty have been asked, you can google it.)
- nsxwolf 10y agoIt's a reasonable question, but I know I certainly wouldn't feel confident unarmed in that scenario.