Quote:
Originally Posted by likwid
Really? harder? VT proved that to be completely and utterly false.
This (fantastic comment by someone) was in response to some senator claiming the same bs.
"Another hypocritical comment by a chicken-hawk who ducked Viet Nam by joining the national guard (which didn't have to fight back then). Speaking as a vet who was drafted, when guns start going off the noise and commotion makes it hard even for trained soldiers to think, and even in crack units a large proportion do not fire or do not fire meaningfully. In the dark it is worse. I recall sitting along a bunker line and watching a three way firefight break out, with tracers going between two locations in the paddies and then in and out of a bunker down the line. Turned out all three were on the same side. To think that untrained people packing guns in a surprise attack in a darkened movie theater could accomplish anything other than more slaughter is a total fantasy."
I *am* highly amused that everyone who thinks someone carrying could have reduced/stopped the bloodshed either a: hasn't served or b: hasn't been in a firefight.
Lots of Massoud the tool along with Guns & Ammo bravado being flung around. (I'm sure we'll agree on this point Jim)
|
"Really? harder?"
Yes. Really. Harder.
"VT proved that to be completely and utterly false."
No. VT proved it's possible to kill many people with handguns. It did nothing to refute my claim that it's easier to kill many people with a rifle.
Likwid, how many Americans troops stormed the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima with .45 pistols, and how many had rifles? Why do you think that is?
I have never, ever, anywhere, heard anyone deny that rifles provide significant tactical advantages over handguns (unless you are within 18 inches of the person you are fighting). All other things being equal, rifles fire more rounds, and have much longer effective ranges, and the rounds do more damage.
"I *am* highly amused that everyone who thinks someone carrying could have reduced/stopped "
It's not reasonable to assume that the attack could have been prevented altogether. It is absolutely possible that an armed moviegoer or two might have resulted in a lower bodycount. And I've been in a firefight, with smkoe, noise, screaming, confusion. Not everyone is trained like a Marine, but it's certainly possible someone could have stopped this guy before he stopped on his own.
I'm not saying I'd want to see 15 yahoos shooting up the theatre. But if I was in that theater, huddled over my wife, and I had my rosary beads in one pocket and a gun in the other, I'm safer with the gun in my hand, and so is evertyone else in there with me, no?