SharkD schrieb:
> 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.

Yes, I think this case pretty much makes a point.

If the mere /presence/ of guns - especially the presence of /big/ guns 
(which I guess the rifle industry doesn't get tired to emphasize) - 
would be any help in stopping a gun-wielding blown-fuse berserker's amok 
run, then that guy should have been downed in seconds flat.

If /everyone/ is carrying a gun around, then the first reaction to 
someone drawing one is probably "gee, what's happening here? Is there 
any danger? Damn, this is serious - he's having a real firefight with 
those guys over there! Man, if only I knew who's the good guys here!", 
rather than "*OH SHIT, HE'S GOT A GUN! HE'S GONNA KILL US ALL! DUCK AND 
COVER! RUN! GET THE FREAKIN' HELL OUTTA HERE!!*"

Which is probably just why that guy had time to kill 13 people before 
anyone came to wits, identified him as an aggressor, and managed to take 
him out.

Post a reply to this message