It always makes me giggle just a little when people accept as a given that police officers should carry firearms...becasue after all...police officers deal with criminals and criminals are often bad people that carry weapons and hurt people. And who do those criminals typically target...police officers? Why of course not! That would be silly. They typically target citizens. The police usually dont get involved til AFTER the crime has been committed.
Last edited by tacomancer; 01-16-11 at 10:41 AM.
There are a bazillion what ifs. What if the guy had been present at the start of the attack and thus seen who the shooter was and killed him immediately. There never would have been any mistaken identification.
What if you couldn't buy any guns? Loughner may have used a knife instead, and thus been able to kill less people.
What if you couldn't buy any guns? Loughner may have turned to making bombs instead, and thus killed more people.
What if everyone had a gun? Loughner may have turned to making bombs, and thus killed more people.
What if everyone had a gun? Loughner may not have acted at all.
Personally, I think making it easier for people to buy guns is unlikely to deter anyone from doing anything - especially insane people. The only difference is more people will end up dead - probably an equal ratio of criminals to victims. But you can theorize just about any result you want.
Last edited by Camer☑n; 01-16-11 at 03:23 PM.