Belisarius
Bluelighter
What do gun fanatics have to do with this shooting?
Perhaps they had nothing to do directly with this incident. They do, however, have the kind of deep pockets that have permanently kept gun control legislation shelved, and who constantly argue that more guns are the solution to gun problems.
One of the things that bugs me about the "more guns" crowd is that they--IMO--completely ignore realism and human psychology. In their world, someone with a gun always has some protection, maybe some spark or inspiration that will give them an edge in a firefight; they imagine someone opening up in a crowd, and one--perhaps many--individuals spontaneously rising to the occasion and snuffing the killer out. That's not how it happens, though; even in combat zones where *everyone's* armed, nobody does such silly walking against the wind stuff. Cops want to save their asses--everyone wants to save theirs--but in that time, a lot of bad shit can happen before our putative "good guy" rises to the occasion, which could've been prevented if there were no rogue gunman to begin with.
Forget about Fort Hood. Say someone with a simple .45 revolver walks into a hypothetical crowded mall in which *every adult* is armed with a handgun of your choice. Let's say he knows how to shoot, knows this is a suicide mission, and decides to make the best of his six shots. If he's very good he can get off say, a shot every two seconds and kill everyone he aims at even if they scatter (which is what real people do when shots ring out); if he's good but not great, maybe he'll kill three and only wound the others. Anyway, he runs out and someone kills him; there you go, three people dead for one gunman. I just cannot believe that, even if everyone were armed and trained to use them, that in a split-second situation like that that someone would kill the perp before at least two other people were killed; or that killing that one perp would be worth the death or grave injury of somebody who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, an injury that would not have happened if that person had not had access to a firearm. Sure, mass stabbings can and do occur, but anyone stacking up the body count of one type against another doesn't have a leg to stand on, if we're just talking about the deadliness of methods.
But, whatever, since this will change not a single person's mind. This country long ago decided that the Second Amendment was worth a few thousand dead people; we made our pie, and now we have to eat it.
Perhaps they had nothing to do directly with this incident. They do, however, have the kind of deep pockets that have permanently kept gun control legislation shelved, and who constantly argue that more guns are the solution to gun problems.
One of the things that bugs me about the "more guns" crowd is that they--IMO--completely ignore realism and human psychology. In their world, someone with a gun always has some protection, maybe some spark or inspiration that will give them an edge in a firefight; they imagine someone opening up in a crowd, and one--perhaps many--individuals spontaneously rising to the occasion and snuffing the killer out. That's not how it happens, though; even in combat zones where *everyone's* armed, nobody does such silly walking against the wind stuff. Cops want to save their asses--everyone wants to save theirs--but in that time, a lot of bad shit can happen before our putative "good guy" rises to the occasion, which could've been prevented if there were no rogue gunman to begin with.
Forget about Fort Hood. Say someone with a simple .45 revolver walks into a hypothetical crowded mall in which *every adult* is armed with a handgun of your choice. Let's say he knows how to shoot, knows this is a suicide mission, and decides to make the best of his six shots. If he's very good he can get off say, a shot every two seconds and kill everyone he aims at even if they scatter (which is what real people do when shots ring out); if he's good but not great, maybe he'll kill three and only wound the others. Anyway, he runs out and someone kills him; there you go, three people dead for one gunman. I just cannot believe that, even if everyone were armed and trained to use them, that in a split-second situation like that that someone would kill the perp before at least two other people were killed; or that killing that one perp would be worth the death or grave injury of somebody who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, an injury that would not have happened if that person had not had access to a firearm. Sure, mass stabbings can and do occur, but anyone stacking up the body count of one type against another doesn't have a leg to stand on, if we're just talking about the deadliness of methods.
But, whatever, since this will change not a single person's mind. This country long ago decided that the Second Amendment was worth a few thousand dead people; we made our pie, and now we have to eat it.
