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.

As a retired member of the US military, I can affirm that by military 
regulation, the victims were prohibited from bearing firearms in the 
place where they were killed.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> In "Wild West" times, the situation was possibly somewhat similar in the 
> US. Nowadays, they appear to have a working law enforcement system, 
> which should reduce the need for personal firearms. (After all, that's 
> exactly their job, isn't it?)

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!

> Here in Germany, we live quite safe, despite(?) private gun ownership 
> being  subject to severe restrictions, and being far from common.
> 
> I guess the situation in the US is closer to Germany than to South 
> Africa. I do concede that in a country where gun ownership restrictions 
> cannot be enforced successfully, any restriction to gun ownership will 
> only hurt the law-abiding. But is the US such a country?

The US situation is somewhat more complex than you will get from 
watching the news.  There are parts of the US that are as safe as any 
part of Germany; there are parts that are as dangerous as South Africa.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On 11/08/09 16:13, John VanSickle wrote:
> As a retired member of the US military, I can affirm that by military
> regulation, the victims were prohibited from bearing firearms in the
> place where they were killed.

	And just in case people are still doubting, I read news articles 
pointing out that they were not allowed to carry firearms.

-- 
Engineers: often wrong, seldom in doubt.

Post a reply to this message