[Archived] Extra ! Extra ! Read All About It !

[ultrablue]

Of course I do understand that, although there was a decent size pro gun lobby in Australia at the time. (granted I was not here at the time but have read various books, articles regarding it )

Regarding the 2nd Amendment, it is my understanding that it is not specific to the types of arms, maybe limit it to the power of weapons when it was first written, should be no complaints they can still play at being cowboys but with less powerful weapons,

Maybe a bit of honesty instead of the sad face and hollow words that are wearing a bit thin ,

"we love the munitions industry money ,most of us your elected officials are bought off, some of you are going to die, live with it! we are not allowed to change it, buy bigger guns"

Obama has been extremely honest about where he stands on gun policy. But Congress won't allow even the most simple measures with near unanimous public support to get through.

Here is a video of the President less than two weeks ago explaining exactly why Orlando was possible, dare I say probable. It's enraging to know people would stand in the way of such common sense rules as stopping likely terrorists from buying killing machines.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

I was talking to a friend last night about Muhammad Ali and I happened to show him his reaction to 'not all white people are racists', which involved a response along the lines of:

'If 10000 snakes were coming into my house and I knew 1% wanted to kill me, but the rest wouldn't touch me, why should I take that risk and let them get to me'. It's not exact, I can't quite remember it fully.

My mate's response (one of the most left-leaning people I've ever met, incidentally) was:

People understand that a and accept it. So why can people not hold similar sentiments regarding 'not all Muslims support ISIS'?

My initial reaction was to be appalled, of course. But I have to admit I struggled to argue against his point.

Interesting isn't it? I'd say the idealist would let the snakes in and trust in the goodness of "snake" nature, and the realist would basically decide what kind of risk he was willing to accept. I would argue thst when it comes down to it, very few people have a infinite capacity for risk to themselves (they're saints basically). Everyone else would draw the line somewhere. If 1 in 10 Muslims entering America intending to do it harm, Trump would win by a landslide. But is that justified when 9 out of 10 would still be friendly? I'd argue evaluating risk is a survival necessity that's programmed into us, and generalising is a nexessary part of evaluating risk. I wonder how many of the LGBT community in America think twice about going to a specific LGBT club again, that's how these scum win I guess.

[Audax]

Omar Mateen who shot up the place was a registered Democrat. Just saying.

[K-Hod]

Omar Mateen who shot up the place was a registered Democrat. Just saying.

Which is interesting as his views would most likely be very conservative. Not quite sure what the relevance of that is mind.....

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Which is interesting as his views would most likely be very conservative. Not quite sure what the relevance of that is mind.....

That the political left throughout the western world have been latched on to by right-wing ethnic minority groups?

I said the same about this country when Labour MPs got death threats for their opinion in Syria. Hardly a liberal approach to freedom of speech. First guy I read about being prosecuted for it was a white Muslim convert. Then there's the anti-Semitism problem in the Labour party, the increasingly violent anti-capitalist matches in London, UAF who have become more violent than the fascist groups they claim to oppose.

No real point to this I suppose other than for the decent liberals to acknowledge that sinister element is there and not let it pull mainstream Labour toward the extremes. UKIP make a point of banning racist members and even Tommy Robinson or Johnson or whatever he's called left the EDL because of neo-Nazi members.

[Steve Moss]

I see there's quite a lot of attempts in the media to dissasociate the attack from Islam. Random nutjobs don't murder 50 (FIFTY!!) people in one attack, determined ideologically-driven religious psychopaths do that. Its a very unproductive road to go down is to start severing the connection between these events and their root cause.

The media's reaction to the Orlando shooting is insane.

I have nothing against Muslim immigrants. Many of them are productive, upstanding and professional members of our American community, who want what everyone else wants: to live in peace and prosperity and to raise their families in the safety and health that the modern Western society provides.

But some lunatics in the West want to blame Christians, conservatives, males, the NRA, etc.. for events like the Orlando shootings as opposed to the true perpetrators, extremist Islamists. This is nuts. It is willful blindness. There is a tiny strand of crazy in some of the Muslim communities. We can't ignore it. We have to root it out while respecting the rights of all Americans, including law abiding Muslims.

The first step to recovery is admitting there is a problem. In my opinion, neither the Democratic party nor their apologists in the media are willing to admit there is a problem, despite many examples to the contrary.

I felt very sorry for Obama last night saying America has to decide what sort of country it wants to be in relation to guns. He knows the answer as do we all.

I suspect that there are a good number of Americans who want nothing to do with Obama's version of America. I'm one of them.

Which is why it is vitally important for moderate Muslims to denounce extremists at every available opportunity.

They have to do more than just denounce, they have to root it out.

Omar Mateen who shot up the place was a registered Democrat. Just saying.

Most of the nutjob shooters have professed a liberal/communist bent. Not blaming the philosophy, but it does appear the heavily medicated crowd (which most mass shooters belong) seem to lean that direction.

Perth, that's rather unfair.

Had it happened only during Obama's tenure, OK, but this has been going on for years.

The US political system is so tied up that very few incumbents can see their agenda through.

This is a feature, not a bug.

[T J Hooker]

What about all the other perpetrators of shooting sprees and school massacres that weren't even muslim?(ie.most of them)

It just seems from the outside that america is rotten to the core and is on going down the pan fast, which is a shame because its full of good hearted people, but as ever good people finish last, especially when scum like the nra have so much influence over politics and you've got lunatics running to be your president.

I think Obama was your last chance to get your country back on track, but you all failed him by not supporting him on key issues.

[Amo]

You honestly think Obama, or any president for that matter, runs the USA?

Whoever controls the money, controls the country, and that sure ain't Obama.

[Steve Moss]

What about all the other perpetrators of shooting sprees and school massacres that weren't even muslim?(ie.most of them)

It just seems from the outside that america is rotten to the core and is on going down the pan fast, which is a shame because its full of good hearted people, but as ever good people finish last, especially when scum like the nra have so much influence over politics and you've got lunatics running to be your president.

I think Obama was your last chance to get your country back on track, but you all failed him by not supporting him on key issues.

Failed Obama? Obama told lie after lie. He failed himself.

Secondly, I'm not in the business of pledging allegiance to people, whether their name is Obama or anyone else. The only thing I owe allegiance to is America.

And America before (and I pray after) Obama is the greatest nation on earth. I distrust those who want to "improve" America by limiting the traditional rights of citizens, seize control of portions of the economy, rule by executive fiat, drive up the debt, in addition to a multitude of other sins.

As to mass shooters, the primary common denominator is mental illness and psychotropic medications. The NRA has offered to work with Obama to resolve this issue. He and the Democrats decline as they think by leaving it unresolved they can achieve even more in the way of gun control, eventually, and when they do make the right noises it is always cover to overreach.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/nra-backed-bill-aims-keep-guns-mentally-ill/

[Mike E]

Failed Obama? Obama told lie after lie. He failed himself.

Secondly, I'm not in the business of pledging allegiance to people, whether their name is Obama or anyone else. The only thing I owe allegiance to is America.

And America before (and I pray after) Obama is the greatest nation on earth. I distrust those who want to "improve" America by limiting the traditional rights of citizens, seize control of portions of the economy, rule by executive fiat, drive up the debt, in addition to a multitude of other sins.

As to mass shooters, the primary common denominator is mental illness and psychotropic medications. The NRA has offered to work with Obama to resolve this issue. He and the Democrats decline as they think by leaving it unresolved they can achieve even more in the way of gun control, eventually, and when they do make the right noises it is always cover to overreach.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/nra-backed-bill-aims-keep-guns-mentally-ill/

Britain has its fair share of mentally I'll people. How many mass shootings have we had in the wake of gun control?

Australia has its fair share of mentally I'll people. How many mass shootings have we had in the wake of gun control?

I have to say that I feel anyone who is against gun control is in the same company as the people committing the mass shootings. No right-thinking person can believe it's okay to carry live ammo on the school run or any other day-to-day activity.

[K-Hod]

Steve, but if there wasn't such easy access to such high powdered weapons for all, including those that are mentally ill, then surely, there would be less of these shootings? I'm not sure why that is hard to grasp for anyone.

Just because a lot of regular, law-abiding citizens can resist the right to pull the trigger after they've had a bad day doesn't make it right for it to be so easy to obtain automatic weapons.

[MarkBRFC71]

Failed Obama? Obama told lie after lie. He failed himself.

Secondly, I'm not in the business of pledging allegiance to people, whether their name is Obama or anyone else. The only thing I owe allegiance to is America.

And America before (and I pray after) Obama is the greatest nation on earth. I distrust those who want to "improve" America by limiting the traditional rights of citizens, seize control of portions of the economy, rule by executive fiat, drive up the debt, in addition to a multitude of other sins.

As to mass shooters, the primary common denominator is mental illness and psychotropic medications. The NRA has offered to work with Obama to resolve this issue. He and the Democrats decline as they think by leaving it unresolved they can achieve even more in the way of gun control, eventually, and when they do make the right noises it is always cover to overreach.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/nra-backed-bill-aims-keep-guns-mentally-ill/

The prime common denominator is ease of access to weapons designed for mass killing. I've still yet to read or hear a reasonable argument in favour of guns that isn't archaic or nonsensical. Innocent people are dying - largely because of the proliferation of guns in the US. It's that simple. Of course there are loony tunes everywhere and you will never stop some senseless deaths - but without guns, Sandy Hook, Orlando etc etc would not have happened, at least on the catastrophic scale they did.

2nd amendment? Outdated nonsense. So you want the right to take up arms against a tyrannical government? Probably an issue in 1791 when all anyone had was muskets so the playing field was level, and you'd just emerged from overbearing British rule and were feeling a little vulnerable, but now? Your government has drones that could precision bomb you through your keyhole if they wanted - good luck against that with your AR-15s, shotguns and handguns. No argument.

Home invasion? Where do you keep your gun - on your nightstand? In a wardrobe near to your bed? Might be of use but what if one of your kids gets it and shoots the other? But then you'll argue "I'm a responsible gun owner, my guns are locked in a safe". Well then they're not much good for defense when someone's broken into your house - are they going to wait to steal your TV (because let's be honest - that's what they're after - it's highly unlikely they want you to even wake up) while you walk to your safe, and put in the code in a panicked state and get your gun out? Not happening - no argument. According to the FBI, for every case of justifiable homicide with a firearm thats to say, a self-defence shooting there are 32 murders, suicides or accidental gun deaths.

Hunting? No place for any bloodsports in the modern world in my opinion, but even if you think there is would you not prefer to have those weapons out of circulation to deny people access to that gun that might just shoot your children? Another no-brainer for me.

The real argument/reason then, seems to be purely "we like guns" - and because it feathers the nests of the NRA and gun companies. Because none of the others are worth another Sandy Hook or Orlando.

1,000 mass shootings in 1,260 days. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-america-gun-violence I've lived in the US since February 12th this year - in that time there have been 117 mass shootings, ie those with 4 or more casualties/deaths. And that's only the cases where 4 or more people have been shot. I shudder to think how many more there would be if you included those with 3 or less victims.

When are you people going to wake up? Ban guns. Make it a life-sentence to be in possession of them - no arguments. Of course I understand you won't totally stop the killing but you would reduce it by 99%. It's got to be worth giving up some 'freedoms' to save innocent lives?

[joey_big_nose]

Most of the nutjob shooters have professed a liberal/communist bent. Not blaming the philosophy, but it does appear the heavily medicated crowd (which most mass shooters belong) seem to lean that direction.

Would you like to back a sweeping statement like that with any evidence? My perception is that the majority of mass shootings/bombings are perpetrated by those with extremely conservative religious and/or social views, including this one (hence the use of the term "Fundamentalist"). He might be a registered democrat but seeing as the Democrat party is hugely supportive of gay rights it is hardly representative of his views.

[joey_big_nose]

The prime common denominator is ease of access to weapons designed for mass killing. I've still yet to read or hear a reasonable argument in favour of guns that isn't archaic or nonsensical. Innocent people are dying - largely because of the proliferation of guns in the US. It's that simple. Of course there are loony tunes everywhere and you will never stop some senseless deaths - but without guns, Sandy Hook, Orlando etc etc would not have happened, at least on the catastrophic scale they did.

2nd amendment? Outdated nonsense. So you want the right to take up arms against a tyrannical government? Probably an issue in 1791 when all anyone had was muskets so the playing field was level, and you'd just emerged from overbearing British rule and were feeling a little vulnerable, but now? Your government has drones that could precision bomb you through your keyhole if they wanted - good luck against that with your AR-15s, shotguns and handguns. No argument.

Home invasion? Where do you keep your gun - on your nightstand? In a wardrobe near to your bed? Might be of use but what if one of your kids gets it and shoots the other? But then you'll argue "I'm a responsible gun owner, my guns are locked in a safe". Well then they're not much good for defense when someone's broken into your house - are they going to wait to steal your TV (because let's be honest - that's what they're after - it's highly unlikely they want you to even wake up) while you walk to your safe, and put in the code in a panicked state and get your gun out? Not happening - no argument. According to the FBI, for every case of justifiable homicide with a firearm thats to say, a self-defence shooting there are 32 murders, suicides or accidental gun deaths.

Hunting? No place for any bloodsports in the modern world in my opinion, but even if you think there is would you not prefer to have those weapons out of circulation to deny people access to that gun that might just shoot your children? Another no-brainer for me.

The real argument/reason then, seems to be purely "we like guns" - and because it feathers the nests of the NRA and gun companies. Because none of the others are worth another Sandy Hook or Orlando.

1,000 mass shootings in 1,260 days. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-america-gun-violence I've lived in the US since February 12th this year - in that time there have been 117 mass shootings, ie those with 4 or more casualties/deaths. And that's only the cases where 4 or more people have been shot. I shudder to think how many more there would be if you included those with 3 or less victims.

When are you people going to wake up? Ban guns. Make it a life-sentence to be in possession of them - no arguments. Of course I understand you won't totally stop the killing but you would reduce it by 99%. It's got to be worth giving up some 'freedoms' to save innocent lives?

It's not worth it Mark. This is an argument where logic and scientific evidence make no impact. The vast majority of gun owners in America are utterly comfortable that open access to weapons makes possible the murder of thousands each year. These incidents will increase in scale annually and nothing effective will be done - the Republicans won't do anything, the Democrats will be blocked from doing anything. It's a fundamentalism in its own right. A societal madness. The worst thing is that those who oppose guns and the violence they cause have no way to secure themselves from it but emigrate. It's tyrannical in its own inverted way. The tyranny of the gun owning fundamentalists over peaceful people.

[K-Hod]

Some reports in the media today that the shooter in the Orlando incident was a regular visitor to the nightclub in question and often used gay dating apps.....

[JBiz]

The only discussion should be guns. Take the guns away, it doesn't happen. Any attention on the specific political, sexual or religious viewpoint of the perpatrator takes away from the sole fact that no guns = no mass shootings.

Yes, the argument for stopping any terrorist act should be deeper than stop the weapons, but the USA seems to be oblivious to this notion that legal guns with or without the stringent control = death of its citizens at the hands of those not fit to be responsible.

A percentage of all human life is absolute scum. Unfortunately the rest of us have to suffer for this, giving up public guns should've been the first thing done.

[Audax]

G4S is a British company that Mateen worked for. Curious article here.

How G4S tolerated the homophobic hatred of Orlando’s IS terrorist

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/how-g4s-incubated-homophobic-hatred-orlando-s-isis-terrorist-451507222

Excerpt:

The problem is that G4S’s approach to domestic security in the US homeland amounts to a hotbed of routine abuse, sexual violence, extremism and homophobia, tolerated at the highest levels of G4S’s management.

G4S’s Florida managers harbour homophobes

Last October, four G4S security officers filed a religious discrimination lawsuit against the Florida-based firm for firing them when they complained about the extremist, homophobic bigotry of their senior G4S supervisor.

The lawsuit, which demands $3.5 million in damages, says that a G4S kiosk where the guards worked at a shopping centre was managed by “a devoutly Christian supervisor who told employees their gay family members were going to hell, played videos about the Illuminati and warned that the security kiosk could be attacked by demons,” according to a local Portland publication.

The supervisor would post Bible verses on the walls and hold daily "prayer circles" with two other guards as part of a campaign of “fervent evangelising”, according to the court filings.

When the G4S employees filed written complaints with upper management about the behaviour, the filings say, they were summarily dismissed.

Harbouring extremist views and bigotry is apparently par for the course at G4S, as became clear after Mateen’s former G4S co-worker Dan Gilroy complained to his superiors about his colleague’s incessant bigotry.

A former Fort Pierce police officer, Gilroy had worked with Mateen over several months between 2014 and 2015. He described Mateen as openly racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic.

“I quit because everything he said was toxic and the company wouldn’t do anything,” said Gilroy. “This guy was unhinged and unstable. He talked of killing people.”

There's a whole lot to this story besides keeping guns away from Nutters.

[Steve Moss]

Britain has its fair share of mentally I'll people. How many mass shootings have we had in the wake of gun control?

Australia has its fair share of mentally I'll people. How many mass shootings have we had in the wake of gun control?

I have to say that I feel anyone who is against gun control is in the same company as the people committing the mass shootings. No right-thinking person can believe it's okay to carry live ammo on the school run or any other day-to-day activity.

I noticed you left France off the list.

I'd congratulate you on your current state of security, but:

1. I think, unfortunately, it is only a matter of time that they come to Britain.

2. As discussed on other threads, you have significant other problems (such as, but not limited to, the Rotherham institutionalized rape).

And the USA is not the UK. I have no interest in the USA following the path laid out by the UK. We'll chart our own course.

Isn't it only the last two mass shootings which have or appear to have links to Islam?

My recollection is American "nutjobs" have been carrying out massacres for decades. It seems to be only in the last 12 months the link has been with Islam.

Your recollection is flawed.

Off the cuff, in addition to the recent Orlando shooting, we have:

San Bernandino

Beltway Sniper

Seattle Jewish shooting

Fort Hood shooting

Little Rock Recruiter shooting

Shooting of 2 NYPD officers

Chatanooga Recruiter shootings

In addition we have had several bombings, the largest being the Boston Marathon. We have had knife and hatchet attacks. We have had Muslim extremists drive vehicles into crowds for Allah. When a terrorist decides to kill, they will kill.

And you are correct in that right wing extremists will kill also. It's just that in the last 20 or so years we have had an uptick in the jihadi variety. So why do we allow them in to the country when we have enough of the other variety to deal with?

Steve, but if there wasn't such easy access to such high powdered weapons for all, including those that are mentally ill, then surely, there would be less of these shootings? I'm not sure why that is hard to grasp for anyone.

Just because a lot of regular, law-abiding citizens can resist the right to pull the trigger after they've had a bad day doesn't make it right for it to be so easy to obtain automatic weapons.

The fundamental rights of a free people are not conditioned upon nutters acting rationally.

The prime common denominator is ease of access to weapons designed for mass killing. I've still yet to read or hear a reasonable argument in favour of guns that isn't archaic or nonsensical. Innocent people are dying - largely because of the proliferation of guns in the US.

No. Look at the recent mass shootings in heavy gun control nations.

You may claim "guns" are the problem, but that doesn't stop bombings, etc.

And when it comes to guns, there are over 300 million of them in the USA. States which recently tried to register assault weapons discovered the compliance rate was minuscule.

You may chose to rely on the government to protect you. Good luck with that. I prefer individuals be able to protect themselves.

Would you like to back a sweeping statement like that with any evidence? My perception is that the majority of mass shootings/bombings are perpetrated by those with extremely conservative religious and/or social views, including this one (hence the use of the term "Fundamentalist"). He might be a registered democrat but seeing as the Democrat party is hugely supportive of gay rights it is hardly representative of his views.

Google is your friend.

The only discussion should be guns. Take the guns away, it doesn't happen. Any attention on the specific political, sexual or religious viewpoint of the perpatrator takes away from the sole fact that no guns = no mass shootings.

So how do you plan to deal with the bombings?

And I notice that strict gun control did Paris little good in it's recent massacre.

I suggest you try again when searching for a solution.

[jim mk2]

You're defending the indefensible Steve and putting your head in the sand and blaming anything but the easy availability and mass proliferation of guns won't make the problem go away. There's no other country in the world and certainly no leading G20 nation that suffers from mass shootings like the USA. When are you going to wake up and realise your country has a serious problem instead of turning a blind eye to the continuing and ever increasing slaughter ?

[Norbert Rassragr]

Can anyone remind me if there were calls to ban religious groups when that white kid shot the black people in their church? Or bans on home schooling when Adam Lanza, who was said to own many guns shot 27 school children in Sandy Hook? Or a ban for all Koreans when the Virginia Tech. University shootings happened? Or the murders at Oikos University, also allegedly perpetrated by a Korean?

People shooting each other happens every day in America, or so it seems but no-one cares unless the person with the gun is called Mohammed. Then they're terrorists, and opportunist gobshites grind the organ to get the hillbillies angry about people they've probably never met or talked to.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Don't usually jump on the bash Steve about gun control bandwagon but on this one I'm afraid I'll have to. Surely Steve, with the threat from Islamic extremism on the rise in your country (and indeed everywhere), the last thing you want is for anyone to have easy access to stuff like semi-automatic weapons? I mean that really is nuts.

Guns aren't the reason that vile, evil scumbag did what he did. Religion is the reason. But guns are the reason he killed/injured over 100 people instead of just stabbing 5-10. I know you'll point to suicide vests etc but at least that level of sophistication requires intelligence, something probably beyond Mateen if his f***wit dad is anything to go off.

[Steve Moss]

Muslim extremist stabs police chief to death outside home, tortures and kills his wife in front of toddler son, all the way live-streaming it on Facebook.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/06/14/man-who-reportedly-claimed-allegiance-to-isis-kills-french-police-chief-wife.html

Quick! We need to ban both knives and Facebook!

[Steve Moss]

Don't usually jump on the bash Steve about gun control bandwagon but on this one I'm afraid I'll have to. Surely Steve, with the threat from Islamic extremism on the rise in your country (and indeed everywhere), the last thing you want is for anyone to have easy access to stuff like semi-automatic weapons? I mean that really is nuts.

Guns aren't the reason that vile, evil scumbag did what he did. Religion is the reason. But guns are the reason he killed/injured over 100 people instead of just stabbing 5-10. I know you'll point to suicide vests etc but at least that level of sophistication requires intelligence, something probably beyond Mateen if his f***wit dad is anything to go off.

Those tactics work in gun free zones and among populations who eschew firearms (like gay night clubs). Try that crap in Mohave County, Arizona, and the Islamist terrorist (or any other type of terrorist) would be dead in about 30 seconds.

There is no banning guns in the USA. There are too many of them. All a ban would do is make criminals out of law abiding citizens, increase the already high level of contempt for the government, and make everywhere in the USA a sitting duck to terrorists of all stripes.

[Audax]

Those tactics work in gun free zones and among populations who eschew firearms (like gay night clubs). Try that crap in Mohave County, Arizona, and the Islamist terrorist (or any other type of terrorist) would be dead in about 30 seconds.

There is no banning guns in the USA. There are too many of them. All a ban would do is make criminals out of law abiding citizens, increase the already high level of contempt for the government, and make everywhere in the USA a sitting duck to terrorists of all stripes.

Okay, gun free zones but this guy had a semi-automatic weapon making it easier to kill.

Let's go Arizona, in 20th place out of 50 states per murder rate.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Those tactics work in gun free zones and among populations who eschew firearms (like gay night clubs). Try that crap in Mohave County, Arizona, and the Islamist terrorist (or any other type of terrorist) would be dead in about 30 seconds.

There is no banning guns in the USA. There are too many of them. All a ban would do is make criminals out of law abiding citizens, increase the already high level of contempt for the government, and make everywhere in the USA a sitting duck to terrorists of all stripes.

So is the answer to make gun free zones illegal in the US? And to put a legal requirement for premises to warn consumers that they have no guns to protect them with and consumers are therefore entering the venue at their own risk? What if something more powerful/clinical than a gun is invented and floods the criminal market? Should that be legalised and possession encourages everywhere, resulting in an ever more deadly populace as technology progresses on into the future? And if not then why have guns, seems pretty arbitrary to say anything up to this efficiency of killing is fine, anything above isn't. If America had been founded 300 years earlier, would the right to bear swords be in the constitution but Americans would view gun possession with the same horror we do?

If nobody but the police and hardened criminals (who police often know about) have guns then people aren't sitting ducks. Quite the opposite. The impossible-to-predict crackpot isn't able to appear out of nowhere and stage a surprise slaughter.