Re: NASA victim needed firearm counterforce - but didn't have it

On Apr 21, 3:55 pm, George Orwell <nob...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Victim was still alive and in condition to use legally entitled deadly
counterforce, but did not have a firearm available, so was finished off by
his killer. He followedNASA'snogun-on-premises rule, but murderers do
not.

NASAwants shooting victims to telephone 911 for a rescue while shooting is
in progress, I suppose. Sometimes the law is an ass, isn't it?

But this overlooks all the other effects of such a change. Since the
murderers do not phone ahead, you'll need to arm a lot of people to
stop them. This would at least double the number of guns within easy
reach. (The increase might be greater, since to be useful each of
these guns would need to be loaded, or have ammo within easy reach.)
In 2004 in the USA, 649 people were killed in gun accidents - see
http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html . This number
could be expected to at least double.

So in order to stop a few killers, you would need to accept killing
off far more people by accident than the murderer could ever kill
intentionally.

This does not seem like a good tradeoff.

Lou Scheffer


.

Relevant Pages