Quote:
Originally Posted by Daldolma
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Yes, if someone in that movie theater were armed and not killed before they were able to comprehend the situation, they probably could have stopped him after a mere two dozen or so casualties.
That's such backward thinking, though. In the event of a one-in-a-million atrocity, yes, it's better to have multiple armed retards. For the other 999,999 atrocity-less viewings, some moron civilian carrying a gun everywhere he goes only opens the door to negative outcomes.
The problem with the pro-gun crowd, if you'll grant that there's a problem, is that you have entirely too much faith in the general population (including yourselves). I have a hard enough time trusting your garden variety idiot to serve me coffee without spilling it on my dick. Naturally, I'd prefer they not be armed with a killing machine.
And for some reason, the pro-gun crowd thinks they're going to be able to save themselves from the rest of the idiots with guns by possessing a gun themselves. That's not how it works. I'm sure plenty of people in that movie theater own guns. They didn't have them at the time. I'm also sure that at least a dozen, probably more, of the casualties could have had guns on them and it wouldn't have mattered because they were already shot by the time they had any idea what the fuck was going on.
tl;dr -- the average human being is entirely too stupid to be trusted with a gun.
|
Hmm, I totally forgot how carrying a gun makes you more likely to be shot before someone that isn't carrying a gun.
You know who the idiot is in your situation? The one who thinks the guys with guns are idiots and chose not to carry because he is more intelligent.
Your entire post is fucking stupid. If anyone was too retarded to pour coffee, it would definitely be you.