>>>>Not all killing is bad.
>>>>If somebody killed Cho after he shot before he murdered 32 people would that have been a bad thing?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, sort of. The good thing here would have been if somebody had seen how ill he was and helped him get treatment. Any other outcome is a bad thing.
>>
>>In a perfect world and hind-sight is 20/20. But you know it doesn't work that way.
>>I think you're relying way too much on others to do the right thing.
>>
>>In the situation that was April 16th in VT, it would have been absolutely the right thing to do.
>
>Well, your original question was ambiguous.


Then why did you answer "Yes, sort of"? If someone along the chain would have done something before the rampage, it would have been a great thing, not sort of great.


>...If someone had stopped Cho (it wasn't necessarily required to kill him to stop him)

You mean like shoot the guns out his hands? I thought that only happened in movies.


>... in the midst of the spree, of course that would have been a good thing.


>
>>>My point was that, for the vast majority of Americans, including most of those making the personal safety argument, it's irrelevant. Clearly, there are exceptions, but the number of households with guns is way, way bigger than the number for whom personal safety is a significant issue.
>>
>>... until it happens to you or to your family.
>
>But that's the point. For almost all of us, it never will happen. Yet protecting their family is the argument widely used to justify keeping guns.
>
>This is a risk assessment issue. Is your family at greater risk from outside threats against which a gun in your home protects, or from the gun itself? The answer varies, of course, but for most Americans, the risk of the gun in the house is much higher than the benefit it brings.

Right. It's like an insurance policy. You don't think you need it until some sh!t happens to you. Then you wish you had it. I believe that's what those student felt, that someone with a gun would take cho down.