And a last, belated addendum, now that some solid news has been released. Gun control wouldn't have worked in this instance. The serial numbers of the weapons used were filed off, meaning that they were bought illegally, and likely stolen. Not that that's any comfort for those grieving the many lives lost.
What bothers me is how few people try to fight back rather than be the victim of a criminal, or in this case, a madman. The first rule of self defense is attack your attacker. This simple maneuver usually throws an opponent off balance. Now granted, in this case it'll be impossible to ever determine what was running through the killers head or whether he would have been fazed by resistance, but going out trying to do something is always preferable to lying down and accepting your fate. Speaking from experience as a security officer, one man can effectively throw a group of aggressive individuals for a loop by coming in and dominating the situation (Read: wading in to the middle and screaming a lot). Most criminals run according to a script where they go in, threaten and face no resistance. When things don't go according to plan they freeze up and start posturing. In the face of continued resistance thsy usually back down and tell you how lucky you are as they walk away. (Then they run when you take after them.)
My point? One person taking a chance and attacking the gunman could have possibly overpowered him, especially if he was counting on his guns to cause people to panic.
I personally think that martial arts training in school could help.
Gun control might be a good idea... if every method of gun control thus far attempted (At least here in Canuckistan) wasn't worse than useless -- and if they didn't keep tightening the regulations, or trying, after significant shootouts involving stolen or other illegal weaponry.
We can't make a sane gun policy by basing it off extreme incidents like this. And we shouldn't use these incidents as the *reason* why gun control should be in place.
The real question is why nobody cared enough to know this person well enough to realise they were starting to go that far out. Some of the reports suggest a recent decline in behaviour before this, a big cue something was going wrong.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
no subject
Not being able to shoot back at a guy who was chaining doors shut to keep his victims in is a bad idea.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
My point? One person taking a chance and attacking the gunman could have possibly overpowered him, especially if he was counting on his guns to cause people to panic.
I personally think that martial arts training in school could help.
(no subject)
no subject
We can't make a sane gun policy by basing it off extreme incidents like this. And we shouldn't use these incidents as the *reason* why gun control should be in place.
The real question is why nobody cared enough to know this person well enough to realise they were starting to go that far out. Some of the reports suggest a recent decline in behaviour before this, a big cue something was going wrong.