"Stefan Viljoen" <spa### [at] polardcom> wrote in message
news:4af415c0@news.povray.org...
> 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.

> Isn't this exactly what happened? I. e. an armed military policeman shot
> back and stopped the guy?

I don't have any statistics, but death toll of 13 seems rather on the high
end for shooting rampages, and I much doubt he'd be killing 50-60 people had
he not been shot. Besides, well, it *was* police.

There was another such shooting in USA today:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/06/orlando.shootings/index.html

resulting in only one death, in spite of there being no armed citizens (nor
police, not that that's the point) to stop him during the act.

Post a reply to this message