Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Do you really want non-police put in a situation where they have to determine not just if their own life is in danger, but if they need to use lethal force because of danger to another?
|
The police are not there to protect the public at large. They are there to uphold the law. In other words, clean up the mess.
This is a SCOTUS ruling. 30 of the 32 VT fatalities were dead by the time cops arrived. VT had a campus ban on concealed carry (legal under state law though). Think about this - VT wanted to promote a safe environment, but can't guarantee you of one, and then restricts you from an effective means of self-defense? Stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
What happens when it's a violent person with a knife or other dangerous item?
|
A person armed with a knife can can cover 21 feet in 1.5 seconds, and stick you dead in a heartbeat. Google "Tueller Drill" if you don't believe me. As part of training, I timed a gent with congestive heart failure and he managed to cover that distance in 2 seconds.
Even in the Commonwealth of Mass, use of lethal force is justified on a knife-wielder. Yes, you can justifiably shoot a knife-wielder, provided you have made an effort to retreat and he is still stalking you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
In the VT incident the problems appear to be the ease at which Cho was able to buy weapons after the system knew he was a wacko, and the inability of the system to find him and stop the violence once it started.
|
The guy shouldn't have been approved for a weapons purchase. He fell through the cracks - the "system" you fault. More importantly, he picked his target with a deliberate view to inflicting the most casualties. Typically these are in victim disarmament zones.
Why didn't he attack a police station instead?