They should NOT have shot at him. Gun safety 101 is “don’t fire unless you’re willing to kill something past the target”, which in this case was a BIG FUCKING CROWD. The criminal needed to be stopped, but this was not the way. Perhaps if he had been actively shooting I would feel differently.
I’m actually not criticizing the guy who pulled the trigger. The situation was a mess and I don’t think a human has the reaction time to think this one out. But it’s another case where we can see that even “good guys guns” can cause more damage than bad guy guns, unlike what the right wing might lead you to believe.
According the article he was about to actively shoot. So no I don’t think this is a case where good guy with gun cause more damage. A rifle being fired into a large crowd would absolutely have caused more damage. Again I don’t understand your point.
The point is probably that only bringing lethal ordinance to a large and crowded environment as a “peacekeeping force”, you’re liable to end of with unnecessary casualties.
The problem isn’t that they reacted with all they had in the situation, the problem is that’s all they went into the situation with.
I guess I just don’t understand how many of us are supposed to die so you feel comfortable. What’s the number? What’s the exact number of us that are allowed to be murdered by right wing nut jobs for you to feel comfortable? They’ve been making threats for weeks. We knew this was a possibility. Some people came prepared and were able to stop a big greater tragedy from happening, yet you’re mad that more of us weren’t mowed down. It’s ridiculous.
What a great straw man you’ve created to argue against.
I’m not angry that someone was stopped from killing lots of people, I’m quite grateful for that in fact. What I’m questioning is why an innocent bystander had to die to prevent it. Why does that not enrage you? Why are you happy to trade one life for others? Is death only a statistical problem for you?
That supposes that there are only two options: shoot a deadly weapon or don’t shoot a deadly weapon.
There are a ton of less lethal options available that can be used. Why weren’t those considered instead? There may have been less innocent casualties that way.
Strongly disagree. They literally shot him in a less than lethal way (he was only slightly wounded, according to the article) and he stopped attacking. It’s entirely possible that other countermeasures would have been sufficient.
Yes, which is why I explicitly said I do not blame the person for making the split second call. You do what you can with the tools you are given at that moment.
But it’s a very compelling case to analyze what went wrong and try to learn from it. Saying “there’s no other way” is silly, because in this case it sure seems there could have been several other ways.
You don’t have to respond to lethal with lethal, especially when the lives of innocents are the price you may end up paying for your imperfection. As was the case in this instance.
Yeah but they were aiming at the bad guy with a gun and they did hit him apparently thus stopping him from shooting a bunch of other people. Like it’s horrible this other guy got shot but the alternative seems to have been a lot of people being shot. I guess I’m just not seeing your point here because it seems like you’re saying it would have been better for the guy to commit a mass shooting and kill a bunch of those protesters.
This assumes they couldn’t have prepared something less liable to cause collateral damage. It’s not like it’s just some random person who happened to have a gun on them, this was apparently a person or persons who specifically came to this event to prevent this sort of thing. And all they seemed to bring was something with a high likelihood of collateral damage.
No, there was a bad guy with a gun, but the good guys killed an innocent bystander instead of the actual criminal.
You can’t even trust someone with perfect intentions with a gun.
deleted by creator
They should NOT have shot at him. Gun safety 101 is “don’t fire unless you’re willing to kill something past the target”, which in this case was a BIG FUCKING CROWD. The criminal needed to be stopped, but this was not the way. Perhaps if he had been actively shooting I would feel differently.
I’m actually not criticizing the guy who pulled the trigger. The situation was a mess and I don’t think a human has the reaction time to think this one out. But it’s another case where we can see that even “good guys guns” can cause more damage than bad guy guns, unlike what the right wing might lead you to believe.
According the article he was about to actively shoot. So no I don’t think this is a case where good guy with gun cause more damage. A rifle being fired into a large crowd would absolutely have caused more damage. Again I don’t understand your point.
The point is probably that only bringing lethal ordinance to a large and crowded environment as a “peacekeeping force”, you’re liable to end of with unnecessary casualties.
The problem isn’t that they reacted with all they had in the situation, the problem is that’s all they went into the situation with.
I guess I just don’t understand how many of us are supposed to die so you feel comfortable. What’s the number? What’s the exact number of us that are allowed to be murdered by right wing nut jobs for you to feel comfortable? They’ve been making threats for weeks. We knew this was a possibility. Some people came prepared and were able to stop a big greater tragedy from happening, yet you’re mad that more of us weren’t mowed down. It’s ridiculous.
What a great straw man you’ve created to argue against.
I’m not angry that someone was stopped from killing lots of people, I’m quite grateful for that in fact. What I’m questioning is why an innocent bystander had to die to prevent it. Why does that not enrage you? Why are you happy to trade one life for others? Is death only a statistical problem for you?
You claim it’s a straw man and then you immediately concede it’s correct. That’s quite fascinating.
deleted by creator
That supposes that there are only two options: shoot a deadly weapon or don’t shoot a deadly weapon.
There are a ton of less lethal options available that can be used. Why weren’t those considered instead? There may have been less innocent casualties that way.
deleted by creator
Strongly disagree. They literally shot him in a less than lethal way (he was only slightly wounded, according to the article) and he stopped attacking. It’s entirely possible that other countermeasures would have been sufficient.
deleted by creator
Yes, which is why I explicitly said I do not blame the person for making the split second call. You do what you can with the tools you are given at that moment.
But it’s a very compelling case to analyze what went wrong and try to learn from it. Saying “there’s no other way” is silly, because in this case it sure seems there could have been several other ways.
You don’t have to respond to lethal with lethal, especially when the lives of innocents are the price you may end up paying for your imperfection. As was the case in this instance.
deleted by creator
Yeah but they were aiming at the bad guy with a gun and they did hit him apparently thus stopping him from shooting a bunch of other people. Like it’s horrible this other guy got shot but the alternative seems to have been a lot of people being shot. I guess I’m just not seeing your point here because it seems like you’re saying it would have been better for the guy to commit a mass shooting and kill a bunch of those protesters.
This assumes they couldn’t have prepared something less liable to cause collateral damage. It’s not like it’s just some random person who happened to have a gun on them, this was apparently a person or persons who specifically came to this event to prevent this sort of thing. And all they seemed to bring was something with a high likelihood of collateral damage.