Today, someone in a nearby office got into a victim disarmament argument with some civilian secretaries. It was regarding a shooting in a McDonald's in northern Columbia (MO) over the weekend. One of the secretaries apparently voiced the opinion that it was a good thing that the victim hadn't been armed, as this would have resulted in a "bloodbath."
I would argue that, especially given that the shooter and victim knew each other, it would have prevented the shooting altogether. Here is the definitive question you must ask on this subject:
Would you rather live in society in which the law discourages criminals from attacking in the first place, or discourages victims from defending themselves?
New workout schedule
6 years ago