Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to No.

I agree
azstrummer — (archived)

The best chance in something random and unexpected like this to subdue the perpetrator is certainly not with a gun. The odds of the one guy that is proficient and fast enough and just so happens to be carrying to be on the scene (even under the most liberal of gun control laws) is extremely low. The best odds are someone athletic and lucky enough to be in the right place and right time that takes the chance and grabs the guy long enough for enough people to overwhelm him. It's not pretty or Hollywood but it carries the most likely possibility.

Where gun control comes into play here is not necessarily banning all guns but instead making these high output auto and semi-auto weapons extremely difficult to attain. A person that can just spray a wide swath quickly with dozens of shots can hold off that possibility of someone interfering rather successfully. Now how you would limit access to those weapons eludes me but it serves as the major source of my frustration in events like this. A standard gun makes a wimp a dangerous man but with some glaring vulnerabilities. An automatic weapon gives him the potential for widespread mayhem and guarantees a high amount of immunity of interference no matter how armed people around him are.

Art

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (58 posts)