On 11/6/2009 7:01 AM, somebody wrote:
> When someone goes on a rampage in a civilian setting, gun nuts are quick to
> point out that had the other people had guns as well, the shooter would have
> been stopped before he could inflict any serious damage. I wonder about
> their angle now.

Exactly.

And, since the death toll was fairly similar to previous attacks, one 
might believe that the effects of large numbers of guns on either side 
are in effect canceling each other out. So, what's the difference? The 
gun companies are getting richer.

Mike

Post a reply to this message