Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
I've said this before, I'll say it again. There is NO LAW that will ever prevent a massacre like this.....NONE....BUT, if those that WANTED to were allowed to carry, this massacre COULD have ended with a lot less deaths.
|
...in theory. That's the real standstill when we come to blows about this time and again. You say, "Guns could have protected them." I say, "Guns could have killed them." I suppose we're both right. It's possible that more guns in this situation could have helped, or it's possible it could have made the situation even worse. We can't really know. On one thing we can agree: I doubt any law could have conclusively and completely prevented this.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
so they are inconsequential to the issue at hand now that they are dead because of said politics. I heard you the first time.
|
They're the subject, so they're obviously consequential. The point, as above, is that the hypothetical scenarios are moot. If someone who knew them and came on talking about how they were pro or anti gun, then their words would have clout. We're just supposing.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
No, and neither can you say say the opposite, since the ONLY thing that stopped this was the gunman taking his own life.
|
Precisely. I can believe that my philosophy on guns is correct, and you can believe that yours is.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
uh, 6 years, US MARINE!!!!! not fun at all, but I was damn glad to have had a weapon myself, thank you very much.
|
Exactly....I'm sure you can attest very clearly as to how different a gun range, the typical gun owner's experience, is with a situation where one is under fire.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
yeah, i know. I pointed this out to you in the san francisco ban thread. I also pointed out how cops shoot innocent bystanders 9% more than civilians using a gun as self defense.
|
Could that be because they're more armed than the populace? I wonder.