ThePlayDrive
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2011
- Messages
- 19,610
- Reaction score
- 7,647
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
That statement is entirely too vague to be treated as an absolute. In this situation, the gunman could be called an active shooter and he was in an environment filled with unarmed people and one person died - the one who had a gun. There are plenty of other situations where an "active" shooter might be targeting a few people, but then when someone else tries to shoot at him, he kills more people than he intended to.well we do know something: an active shooter in an environment full of unarmed victims will almost always result in MORE deaths than an active shooter in an environment full of armed potential victims.
that is beyond debate
Again, saying, "I know that a gun would have made it better" as an end all be all response to any situation where a gun is used by a criminal is nonsensical. That as misterman's point and that's my point.