[nilbog]

Originally Posted by Barkingturtle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Are you sure bystanders didn't have guns?

No, I only read the one article. I'm not sure if the bystanders were armed or not. I'm not sure if the shooter opened fire in the seating area or the lobby. I said that "If bystanders had guns, they might have helped. I'm not sure the legal ramifications if they did, but they might have saved some lives." Is this not true? If the guy opened up fire, but there were bystanders surrounding him, someone might have taken action. If everyone had a weapon, this might not have happened:

officers immediately took the suspect into custody in the parking lot behind the cinema, where he surrendered without a fight,

I'm not trying to imply this guy should be shot to death, but he might have assumed it was possible he wouldn't die. If everyone was armed, the shooter might not survive. He also might not have attempted a public killing spree.

That's the crux of my overall pro-gun beliefs. If guns exist, and they are legal to own, then why not have one? If all firearms could magically disappear and the simple technologies required to make them weren't possible, I would vote yes on the removal. I would vote yes on the removal of anything capable of mass-slaughtering humans; guns, and everything else as powerful as guns. It's not possible. Guns exist on every continent and in every country.

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.

Sure, it might have helped. The projectionist might have saved the day, or a random person. Not carrying a weapon removes your personal power to do anything in the hopes that an off-duty police officer, or someone who can resolve the crisis follows through.

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?"

In a thread entitled Americans and Guns (post pics of your armory !), where a random troll posts:

so much for the argument that easier access of guns for the law abiding citizen will help stop with such masacres.

seems it only ever helps the person who wants to do the killing

Seems like a nice place to discuss this.

I've been around guns my entire life so I might have a different viewpoint than others. I see a gun as a tool like a lot of other things. Everyone around me owns firearms and knows how to use firearms.