It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by kro32
I think that if the bus driver hadn't known to get out of the situation and those guys got on the bus there would have been a lot of dead people.
This is a unique instance in which no one gets hit.
Look at mumbai, how may were killed?
Look at Norway. 90 Dead, 2 hours. That would not have lasted if people had been able to fight back. You are failing to see the circumstances as unique.
Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by blackrain17
You didn't read the whole thread did you
If the people would have been armed they would have shot back thereby causing a firefight in the middle of the street with the odds going to the guys with the AK's. There were children on that bus who would have been caught in the crossfire.
No guns on the bus the thugs shot, it appeared they were looking for someone, and just bailed. They obviously weren't there to slaughter everyone. Had people shot back they would have also more than likely.
Originally posted by LightAssassin
reply to post by kro32
Actually, they were lucky they were young and wreckless. Nothing more, nothing less. If they had real bad intentions it would have ended far worse. We can only hope that if they decided to step onto the bus that someone actually did have a firearm.
They were intending to instil fear, maybe kill the guy intended but showed little care for accuracy and collateral damage.
This is an argument you wont win because that access to weaponry they have.
You can't disarm criminals. Especially when you cant even guarantee they aren't being supplied by your own government.edit on 7-8-2011 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by blackrain17
Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by blackrain17
You didn't read the whole thread did you
If the people would have been armed they would have shot back thereby causing a firefight in the middle of the street with the odds going to the guys with the AK's. There were children on that bus who would have been caught in the crossfire.
No guns on the bus the thugs shot, it appeared they were looking for someone, and just bailed. They obviously weren't there to slaughter everyone. Had people shot back they would have also more than likely.
You have no idea. If people had guns, he wouldn't be that comfortable blasting away. Only reason why he did what he did was because he knew no one was armed around him.
Originally posted by LightAssassin
reply to post by kro32
You're ignorantly failing to realise the criminal element of america.
When all you have are seconds, the police are just minutes away.
Originally posted by kro32
Originally posted by LightAssassin
reply to post by kro32
Actually, they were lucky they were young and wreckless. Nothing more, nothing less. If they had real bad intentions it would have ended far worse. We can only hope that if they decided to step onto the bus that someone actually did have a firearm.
They were intending to instil fear, maybe kill the guy intended but showed little care for accuracy and collateral damage.
This is an argument you wont win because that access to weaponry they have.
You can't disarm criminals. Especially when you cant even guarantee they aren't being supplied by your own government.edit on 7-8-2011 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)
I understand your point but most criminals don't intend to go around just randomly killing people. If all of a sudden people start trying to shoot them instead of letting em run away to get caught by the police later your going to have more deaths.
Originally posted by kro32
Originally posted by LightAssassin
reply to post by kro32
You're ignorantly failing to realise the criminal element of america.
When all you have are seconds, the police are just minutes away.
Your assuming criminals will not do their crimes if they think people will be armed. I think they will still do the crime but just bring a bigger gun to get through the opposition.
Originally posted by kro32
Originally posted by blackrain17
Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by blackrain17
You didn't read the whole thread did you
If the people would have been armed they would have shot back thereby causing a firefight in the middle of the street with the odds going to the guys with the AK's. There were children on that bus who would have been caught in the crossfire.
No guns on the bus the thugs shot, it appeared they were looking for someone, and just bailed. They obviously weren't there to slaughter everyone. Had people shot back they would have also more than likely.
You have no idea. If people had guns, he wouldn't be that comfortable blasting away. Only reason why he did what he did was because he knew no one was armed around him.
You don't know that. Possibly they would have brought more people with more guns in anticipation of people being armed.
edit on 7-8-2011 by kro32 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by kro32
People should have quit commiting crimes when all the citizens were carrying sidearms.