4Prop, please refer to some of my earlier posts in this thread where I dealt with the notion that an inexperienced shooter can reload as fast as an experienced gun owner. The basic point is that more reloads means less bullets fired and more time vulnerable to be subdued. Those factors are only amplified when dealing with an inexperienced shooter. At the end of the day, this means less people shot and less lives ruined. Furthermore, I think that a second shooter would not have helped anything, expecially in a dark theater against someone wielding heavy firepower and with a bullet proof vest. But I digress.
Jimson, you continue to argue that because they will find other ways, that such a ban should not be put in place. Again, why should guns be illegal on planes? Yes, terrorists could make IEDs or bombs or drive a bus off a cliff, so what's the point in stopping them from bringing guns on planes? The fact that people will find other ways to wreak havoc is no reason not to impose a law to limit one common avenue of attack.
When you have some time, do some reading on the Washington Naval Treaty. It was designed to prevent nations who had previously been belligerent, from acquiring a large, very powerful naval force. It placed restrictions on the size on battleships and cruisers as well as the number allowed for a given nation. It failed when some nations who signed the treaty, then ignored it. Germany, Italy and Japan were the main violators. Meanwhile, the west adhered to it and found themselves at a disadvantage when war came. Compare the treaty battleships of the King George V class to non-treaty Tirpitz.... Slower, less well armed and armored...
When you restrict good guys, you give a greater advantage to the bad guys. Always, always. Politicians are all about superficial fixes. It's quick and easy and they can point to it and say, "hey, I did something". The reality is that they did nothing at all, but appease the uproar. Like a bandaid on road rash, it does nothing at all and is painful to remove later.
Whether you understand this or not, the only true security you have is that which you provide for yourself. The Police have no legal obligation to protect you. None whatsoever. If they happen to see someone assault you, then they can intervene. Otherwise, you are on your own. Even an order of protection is nothing more than writing on paper. If the bad guy choses to ignore it, they will arrest him later. Maybe too late for you. It seems to me that the police are, due never ending restrictions, becoming more of crime statistics collection organization... You must get used to the fact that you are responsible for your own safety...
