Assuming people would had their guns at the beach under their swimsuits, it won't make much of a difference in this kind of situations, even skilled armed security personal could never react in time unless he/she has been able to identify suspicious behavior, so even if 50% of the people were carrying a gun they could never even reach it in this time and place, prior to the minute before the shooting its hard to even tell if he is even been suspected because of all the tourists in there, maybe stricter law enforcement could reach the terrorist before but not at present situation where everyone can be innocent or a potential terrorist.
Yes....so you agree it is good that no one on that beach had a gun to even try to stop the shooter, considering that if he had to deal with people shooting back lives could have been saved......
No one on the beach was allowed to have a gun.....37 people were murdered....
So it would have been a bad thing if people had been allowed to carry guns? and it could have been worse how?
Have you ever studied actual self defense situations involving armed citizens? You really don't know what you are talking about do you?
A shooter like this, facing multiple armed civilians is not going to have the freedom of movement to kill easily.....lives could have been saved...but anti gun extremism served them up for slaughter.....
Actually if there was a good dedicated team to guard the perimeter it could've been avoided.
Having armed civilians mixed with armed civilians could cause a chaos for these security personal and they could've injure innocents or in the good case perhaps get a clear shot on the terrorist and hopefully not get shot by other armed civilian, notice that you can't tell which armed civilian is the real terrorist, and by the way a terrorist cell in shootout attacks consists more than one perpetrator in most times.
I Do agree it can sometimes help but in most of the times it just sparks an extra unwanted chaos.
I Can go on explaining further points but it's for another gun control debate, so instead I'll just point out that locals carrying a gun could only give the terrorist a more suitable cover specially among tourists.
Have you studied self defense situations with civilians armed with guns? You do realize that by the time armed security made it to the scene 37 people had already been murdered? At Sandy Hook, the killer killed 26 human beings in under 5 minutes, and as soon as armed resistance was heard approaching, the police sirens, he stopped and killed himself. Of course this is a terrorist attack so they are usually better trained in that part of the world, see kenya, Terror in the Mall, and mumbai, Terror in Mumbai, two documentaries on terrorist attacks like this....
If you watch those documentaries, the film footage shows the killers are calm and methodical...because no one is returning fire on them....they have unlimited time to murder. You are wrong....armed civilians would save lives, in the least as a deterrent effect, since you rarely see these terrorists attack hardened targets or places where the victims can fight back....
To think that armed civilians would make the situation worse or more difficult is a point of view not based on reality. One person with a gun, or more than one, could have saved lives....
