Some guy wrote at length that the solution for mass shootings was to have everyone armed, so that if a shooter started waving a gun around then he could be stopped by the people he had chosen as victims because, being armed themselves, they would not be victims. They could whip out their trusty pistols and kill him instead and the problem would be solved.
There are a couple of problems that I see with this, the first being that in all probability instead of shooting the bad guy they would shoot each other and the casualty count would be increased. The last thing you need in an enclosed space is bullets flying everywhere.
The bigger problem is the handicap that it places on law enforcement. One of the cardinal rules for shooting scenes is that non-uniformed officers never enter the building, because uniformed officers who do enter will promptly take down anyone they see who is wielding a gun and is not in uniform, assuming he is a bad guy. If all of the good guys are armed as well as the bad guys, how do the officers know who to take down?
Idiots who advocate a universally armed citizenry as an antidote to violence are woefully ignorant of history. The wild west at one time consisted of a universally armed citizenry, and the death rate became so high that Wyatt Earp banned handguns in Dodge City.
No comments:
Post a Comment