Conservative news, video and comment from the Bluegrass state.
"And maybe you could have had a firefight and killed many more people."
That's not exactly logical now, is it. A firefight implies that there are two parties shooting at one another.Which means that someone with a gun would have been shooting at the orange haired nut.And the orange haired nut would have been firing at them (hence, at no one else.)Why is this scenario worse than only the orange haired nut having a gun and shooting at innocent people till he ran out of ammo?Obviously it's a better scenario. The perp would have been using his ammo up shooting at one particular person (and not anyone else) who we shall assume had the good sense to take cover (meaning the perp would have to take multiple shots at him.) Consequence: less shots taken at other people.In the meantime, other people could skedaddle out the door (which is a positive.)And of course there is at least a 50-50 chance that someone else with a gun would have plugged the perp right between the eyes with his first shot. In which case the only dead person would be the one who deserved it.So whichever way you look at it, having armed civilians in that cinema would have resulted in a better scenario than having no armed civilians in that cinema.That politicians doesn't know his arse from his elbow.
Post a Comment