Can we get the name of this thread changed to "Hypothetical situations created on why gun ownership is bad!"
People should only comment on the Aurora shooting after all the facts have come out. If in fact it's true that he wasn't wearing a bullet proof vest people like this will look silly...
"First, as a practical matter, it should be noted that this argument borders on the absurd."
That's in response to the hypothetical situation gun advocates have come up with. Directly following the author says.
"The suspected shooter, 24-year-old James Holmes, was wearing protective body-armor from head to toe."
This is a copy and paste from the article. What's really absurd is that he claims he was wearing protective body-armor from head to toe.
Really? His shoes, pants, pelvic region, arms, upper body, stomach, and head were all protected by body-armor? Now if you consider shoes protection from a thorn or stubbing your toe. The knee pads to protect you from slipping and falling and scraping your knee. The gas mask to protect from harmful gas. None of these items stop bullets.
It should be noted that article was written by a lawyer, someone who should know better than inaccurate and biased reporting. Notice he says "Suspected" shooter as if it's a possibility that James Holmes did not do this. We know this as fact that he did people are just trying to be politically correct with the suspected nonsense. However he says that James Holmes was wearing body-armor head to toe as if it's so much of a fact that Moses should present it to the masses on stone tablets.
Point is you can use all the hypothetical situations in the world but it doesn't change what happened. A group of unarmed citizens were gunned down by a madman. Maybe a gun toting citizen could have shot and killed James Holmes before injuring so many. Maybe he would have been shot and killed himself. I know one thing for sure I would rather be known in history to go down defending myself, family, and fellow citizens, rather than going to slaughter like a lamb.