Originally Posted by
JAB1985
honestly Im not even trying to make a point about collateral damage. at least not this time. aurora i certainly was but that was completely different circumstance. i just dont see this particular instance as a reason to be pro or against guns. Maybe its not coming off like that, but i dont see the point in putting a gun in the dead victims hand just to say "at least he had a shot" whether he had an opportunity or not. obviously i wasnt there, and as more comes out ill gladly admit that if he had even the remote ability to use a weapon, he should have, i just dont think he ever did. so whether or not he did have one doesnt change anything that resulted, imo.
to me the notion the crowd or someone within it would react with force within an instance enough to save him just seems far fetched, but id agree someone in the crowd would at least have better use by comparison to the guy that just got ran over and pinned against an immovable object. the crowd did react, after they ran into, ran over, drug, stabbed, tried to behead and moved him into the street. I think it took time to comprehend what they were witnessing, accident or attack. by the time it was seen as an attack and they came forward to stop them, it was too late. they did so regardless that they were unarmed and the attackers were, which to me is an indication they didnt process it was an attack until it was too late for the victim. the crowd to protect themselves i dont argue would have benefited had they tried to kill more, but again knowing they didnt attack anybody else, whether they did or didnt, the result is the same in this case.