2012-07-30, 01:13 PM
Flonne Wrote:All valid points, but especially this one. I'm not going to argue with that, the theatre dropped the ball bigtime by not even noticing a back door propped open. Still, a scenario in which where he dies to a headshot is still better because less people get hurt overall. Even if a person stood up and drew attention by firing on the gunner...that person would probably still die, but that would be a few seconds in which he was focused on a single person instead of groups of people. Still less people would die.
Depends, which is why I said perhaps. Majority of the wounded be gone, but if you saw the position majority of the death toll would still be in the same. He came into the theater from the right, surprised two rows of people and unloaded. The wounded were the ones who ran away or were farther up in the seats. There's als the perspective of the victims families who would not feel vindicated by simply watching him die. It's too good for him as it strips away all responsbility he had.
Locked Wrote:Much like people will always do drugs, people will always have guns. Restricting gun usage for civilians doesn't harm the "bad guys" because the "bad guys" will always get guns one way or another.
Are you playing devils advocate or agree with this reasoning? Less restrictions would just cause more instances like this to happen. A gun is a weapon, it's designed for no other purpose than to kill, a proper defense isn't "I kill you first".