Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (598086)	1/14/2011 7:42:54 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574061

If he hadn't had a gun, he might have used explosives. If he couldn't legally have a gun, he probably would have had a gun anyway, he's been obsessing about this congresswoman for some time. As for the 2nd amendment supporters having won, there is something to that, but its a bit too strong, they have been winning, and for the near future will likely keep winning, at least on the national level, but that's only because they keep fighting, if they just said "we've won, no need to do anything anymore", eventually they would probably lose. As for "the occasional horrific massacre", they are more likely to happen the more we control guns. They keep potential victims from arming themselves, and being able to deter or stop (with a guy like this shooter probably stop, he doesn't seem like he would be all that deterred, but maybe he would be its not like I really know what goes on in his mind), while the criminals and the determined crazies still get guns. Anyone who is willing to risk being shot or convicted for murder, two of the reasonably likely results from making such an attack, are unlikely to let a law against gun ownership stop them. A mass killing like this is one of the worst scenarios to use as an argument for gun control. One on one, you might try to argue that the shooter would shoot first from surprise (ignoring the fact that this might not work, or that he might miss, or that the person shot could still shoot back in many cases), but in a mass killing where he's shooting one person after the other, there is more time for someone to stop him. Apparently in this particular case one of the people who did stop him was carrying. He didn't shoot the perp, because he had a chance to restrain the perp during reloading. But if the reloading had been finished or the perp hadn't run out, he might have saved people's lives with his gun rather than by tackling the perp. And if he wasn't carrying he probably wouldn't have even been in position to stop the perp, since he would have been more likely to run away from the violence rather than trying to confront it. This is one of the few mass shootings that where not in a "gun free zone" or at least a place where guns where heavily restricted and/or not normally carried because of law or custom. Which might help explain why only six where killed, rather than 32 as in Virginia Tech, 13 at Ft. Hood (where you might think a lot of people would be armed, but you'd be wrong, guns are strongly controlled on army bases), 15 in Winnenden, 30 in Tsuyama, etc.