Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ; FyredUp
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ;OL' MONN:
I might be the first one shot, but I will never be the second.
|
Is this really how this quote is supposed to go? Because if it is I guess it seems actually kind of stupid to me.
|
FyredUp,
Since OL'MONN has not answered and I am here, I think I will presume to answer for him. I hope it's OK.
I believe that is how the quote is supposed to go. The scenario that makes it understandable is this:
Gunman comes in and shoots someone. OL'MONN responds to contain the situation (either with a gunshot or by forcing the perpetrator to stop at gunpoint). It is unlikely any armed civilian would be the one to pull a gun first.
for example, Luby's Cafe, October 16, 1991. George Hennard drove a car through the front of Luby's and started shooting people. If Suzanne Gratia had been armed, she would have been able to shoot Mr Hennard from cover before his tally ran up to 23 dead (her testimony to the U.S. Congress in 1994).
Another case in point. Virginia Tech, April 16, 2007. Even if everyone on campus had been armed, the first victim, or possibly two, would probably have been killed. By the time Seung-Hui Cho got to the Engineering building (Norris Hall), and certainly after he killed the first person there, (when everyone was climbing out windows and barring doors) if that one teacher who blocked a classroom door with his own body had been armed, Cho could have certainly been stopped rather than gone on to kill two dozen additional people (total 32 plus himself). I am being pessimistic in estimating that he might have been able to kill 6 in Norris hall before being stopped by an armed civilian.
The armed civilian, if not the first one shot is in the best position to be the second one to fire a bullet. That one in self-defense, aimed, from cover and bring an end to whatever evil is being done.
Lost sheep