Quote:
Originally Posted by DGTess
No one said if someone had a concealed weapon it would have stopped the attack. Only that it might.
|
She does say "could have possibly," but to me, this comes close enough:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcsparky
I also see how this is a case advocating for personal concealed carry. If just one person in that theatre had been trained and able to stop this guy, imagine how many of those 12 deaths could have possibly been prevented.
|
Again, it's simplistic, because we can similarly imagine that the hypothetical person carrying a concealed weapon who tried to help wasn't trained well enough for a task like that.
It's not that it's not possible that it could have helped. It course it might have. What I'm uncomfortable with is the bald assertions in the wake of an incident like this along the lines of "this shows why we need to be able to carry concealed weapon into places like movie theaters." I think that's a knee-jerk reaction that ignores the possibility of the law of unintended consequences and assumes only two possible outcomes -- that it would have helped or that it would not have made a difference -- and ignores the third possible outcome. That's the part of it I have a problem with.
Threaded Mode
