> If a civilian had shot him halfway through his massacre, would you
> really have called her or him a "vigilante?"
Yes, because that's the meaning of the term. No connotation was implied.
> 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.
That's probably true, but since such mass shootings are rare, what's the point of arming everybody to limit their impact? Especially when so doing will only cause more gun deaths overall? My point was simply that the arguments of people who are pro-gun overreach. Claims such as "more guns, less crime" are ludicrous. One can be opposed to gun control without making ridiculous claims or generally making an ass of one's self. The problem is that the people who are anti-gun control usually are not simply anti-gun control. They are affirmatively pro-gun, pro-vigilantism, and, sadly, often racist. They are the reactionary, suburban middle class who would rather protect the meager economic status in society granted them by literally fending off the poor with weapons (and risking the safety and welfare of their own children) than join with them to transform the society into one in which they no longer need to fear crime. I don't really care for those kind of people.
(And their perceptions and fear of crime itself, like their arguments, are outlandish. Crime is a rare phenomenon, even more so for the middle class. But generating that fear is important to ensuring their loyalty to the ruling class and hostility towards the poor.)
>> 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.
A counterpoint to this: