Originally Posted by Sassicaia
The problem with the VT incident is this
Those are the two weapons used, and the guy who didnt it didnt give a shit if he lived or died. He wanted to kill as many people as possible, so he would have done it if people had guns or not.
Without access to those to hand guns, there would be no reason to arm people to protect them selfs against people who have those.
The logic here is making me ill.
if you use you're own logic, the guy who did this didn't give a shit, so what makes you think having no access to guns would've changed? how easy could it have been for him to make a bomb and blow shit up?
also whether or not the people there had guns would make a big difference, i only said the determent was part of it, the other part wouldve been some one shooting him in the head before he killed as many as he did