> I can assure, he did not choose his "terrain" for that reason, nor did the
> thought of his being shot by a vigilante ever cross his mind.
Perhaps not, but it seems to have proved ideal for his purposes, nonetheless.
If a civilian had shot him halfway through his massacre, would you really have called her or him a "vigilante?"
> I can't for the life of me tolerate the
> plethora of nonsensical arguments from pro-gun people, such as that
> increased gun ownership by "law abiding" people will deter gun crimes
> (committed by "criminals") from occurring or save lives. They are
> nauseatingly inane.
How so? Granted, incidents of armed civilians ending mass shootings, like at the Appalachian School of Law, are rare, but as Chuck notes, so are the shootings themselves. Show me a mass shooting coupled with armed bystanders, and I'll show you a shooting that ended quickly.
> Indeed, although we don't know yet, I suspect the
> shooter in the Virginia Tech killings was a "law abiding" gun owner right up
> until the moment he killed 32 people, not counting himself.
I honestly have no idea what point that's supposed to establish.