Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkingturtle
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Are you sure bystanders didn't have guns?
I think what you meant to say was: If bystanders had discharged their guns, it might have helped.
Or maybe, more accurately, you meant to say: If a bystander had brought their gun to the movie theater, managed to not get shot before he could react, identified the shooter in a chaotic, darkened theater full of screaming, fleeing victims and tear gas, drew a bead and successfully shot the spree killer, well, that might have helped.
Why is this argument important to people? The argument that "if only someone in the killing field had brought their gun shit would have been different". What about a populous already teeming with firearms makes some people think, "Gee, where can we fit moar guns?"
|
Obviously your points are all salient and astute.
I think you're missing the underlying assumptions of people who make these kinds of ridiculous claims. They think of that bystander as themselves, with all the attributes and abilities their video-game conception of the world applies to themselves. They actually think that in that kind of situation, with no training or drilling, that they could do that sort of thing. This is one area where military women and men would have a definite leg up, and that kind of training (if it ever sank in) combined with an available weapon may have actually saved the day. The problem is that in the grandiose mind of the average citizen, being leet at black ops means you'd know what to do in that situation, so they argue for idiotic things like "everyone shoulda had a gun."
I just used a lot of words and most of them are rambling, but I think you should be able to get what I'm saying.