As I said above, your view on guns is the "more guns the better defence view"
I never made the argument that the "more guns the better the defense", as you put it. That's just dishonest.
The problem here is that you're conflating people that are gun enthusiasts or "gun nuts" with the average owner of a firearm, that may own 1 of 2 firearms for self-defense or home defense.
Every person that owns a firearm doesn't automatically subscribe to the notion "more guns the better the defense". Having
more has nothing to do with it.
It's a question of law-abiding Americans being restricted from exercising the constitutional right to own or carry a firearm at all, by way of more and more restrictive gun laws as reactive measures.
The problem with that view is most of the mass killings involve people in innocent circumstances and sometimes kids who wouldnt have a gun anyway. It's not like the shooter today was trying to kick down someone's front door and the victim had time to grab their gun a shoot them back.
Of course, the children wouldn't have a gun, that's a silly point. Seeing as how this just happened and details are still coming in,
I cannot speak to what transpired, or what did or did not happen.
Despite all of that, you would still want a person with a gun ( a police officer) to come and stop an active shooter.
Often times, the shooter commits suicide or gets gunned down by cops 10 minutes later. So even if a store manager or school principal pulled out their gun to defend everyone, the shooting already started.
Doesn't matter if the shooting has already commenced, it's about stopping an ongoing threat and preventing more violence or loss of life.
That same logic can be applied to police officers, who are also armed.
Just because an active shooter is still running around shooting people doesn't mean the police wouldn't have any more incentive to stop the shooter by using lethal force regardless of how many people have already been shot.
Let's not pretend its a video game where if someone pulls out a gun out of the blue and starts shooting, people have regen health, can take a few slugs and shoot back like Dirty Harry.
Who's pretending this is a video game? I don't see the purpose of taking a very dire situation and trivializing it with a video game analogy, simply because we happen to be on a video game discussion forum.
I'm certainly not making light of this, and I assume you aren't either, so I don't see the need for that.
Most mass shootings arent even crime scenes like bank robberies or an OK Corral shootout or anything like that. So it's not like the usage of the gun is defence. It's on the offence for weirdos who want to kill 20 people at a time before anyone can even react.
That's just an absurd claim. So anyone that has ever used a firearm to defend themselves or others against attackers are all just "weirdos that want to kill 20 people at a time" for simply owning and wielding a firearm?
I suppose it doesn't matter the intentions of the people wielding firearms, nor the context of the situation and whether or not they were justified in their use of a firearm? Yea, I would strongly disagree with that claim.
This brings me back to my point of stressing the mental state of this shooter and their motivations.
It's odd how in the wake of these shootings, the conversation tends to immediately veer into policies and more gun control, and the underlying factors that lead up to the incident are often an afterthought.
www.expatica.com
