Lets just say all the Virginia Tech students were armed.
What is to stop the gun man from obtaining RPGs or dynamite or machine guns to do his evil work while wearing a body armor ?
What NRA policy would the student body have to adopt, if we know that criminals can obtain machine guns and RPGs and dynamite ?
What NRA policy would the student body have to adopt, if we know that criminals can obtain machine guns and RPGs and dynamite ?
You think criminals in the U.S. can buy RPGs, machine guns and dynamite?
‘What NRA policy would the student body have to adopt, if we know that criminals can obtain machine guns and RPGs and dynamite ?’
You have to be trolling, they are criminals. Of course they can get those items if they are willing to pay.
‘Lets just say all the Virginia Tech students were armed.
‘
Let’s, this would have ended in the first classroom.
Head shot defeats body armor. Every Time. But, But, what if they show up with tanks, and battleships, and F-16’s? SARCASM ON
You are really barking up the wrong tree with these arguments. Guns can't prevent every murder scenario, but they can prevent many. That is the point. Arming every citizen is not going to put an end to mass murder, but it will make it more difficult. Any of this sinking in yet?
Nothing would stop him from wearing body armour but one good shot to an unprotected spot can still kill, troll.
As long as human beings draw breath, there will be whackos who want to do harm to others. It is a state of the human condition.
As long as human beings exist, there will be people, including whackos, who manage to get access to things that will do harm to others, whether those things are RPGs, dynamite, machine guns, baseball bats, rocks, foul language, or lies.
No matter how many intrusive, freedom-restricting laws we pass to restrict whackos or weapons, the two items I list above will ALWAYS hold true. ALWAYS. There is not one thing under the sun we can do to change either one.
There is only ONE factor that we CAN manipulate: the right and ability of people to defend themselves from whackos (or anyone else) who mean them harm.
Your tossing RPGs (don't know what that is offhand), dynamite (nothing to do with the 2nd amendment or firearms), machine guns, and even body armor (!!) into the equation is inane, as much an illusion of depth or meaning as a room walled in mirrors where you look into "infinity." It convinces me all the more that you do not seek answers, you seek rationale for dictating how others may or may not defend themselves.
What is to stop the gun man from obtaining RPGs or dynamite or machine guns to do his evil work while wearing a body armor ?
What NRA policy would the student body have to adopt, if we know that criminals can obtain machine guns and RPGs and dynamite ?
And people who manage to acquire those things can still be stopped by a pistol bullet, even if they are wearing “body armor”. Just aim for the head (or is he wearing a helmet in your deluded scenario?)
A lot of my fellow FReepers are concluding that you are a leftist troll.
I have not come to that opinion, as yet, so welcome to FR.
You do, alas, show a naivete concerning matters related to violence and self-defense which is quite atypical of American conservatives, and more commonly found on the American left: the loudest voices on the left at once want to give the state a monopoly on the means of violence and hobble the state in its effective use of violence, whether abroad in war, or at home in law enforcement, through ‘humanitarian’ rules of engagement and various ill-conceived ‘civil rights’ measures.
The point of an armed citizenry is not the certainty that a good-law abiding citizen will kill or incapacitate an evil doer (be it common armed robber, homocidal maniac, jihadi, or would-be tyrant) before harm is done, but the extra difficulty in carrying out evil plans presented by uncertainty as to who will return fire in defense of self and unarmed innocents.
Our troops in Iraq wear body armor and still killed by small arms fire- head-shots by snipers or shots at close-quarters with sufficient velocity to punch through the body armor. The same would apply to miscreants facing an armed citizenry. A head-shot from behind will take out a body-armored thug armed with machine gun, explosives and a grenade launcher. Those with more practical knowledge than I of small-group tactics, can doubtless provide other scenarios in which one or more persons armed with various small arms could, in extremis, successfully engage a more heavily armed opponent.
It's called a "head shot".