Where guns are allowed, rampage shootings don't happen.
In the case of guns, sure. But if a disturbed individual wants to go on a suicidal rampage and they have a weapon that will kill them and many others at once, why wouldn't they use it?
Are we back to nukes, then? Suicide bombers happen now, you know. (might want to ask yourself why they do that, too)
Not necessarily. Kevlar and something that spits out lots of lead all at once will also do the trick I imagine.
Doesn't really fit the "a weapon that will kill them and many others at once" though, does it?
Let me rephrase to something a little less explosive:
...... In the case of guns, sure. But if a disturbed individual wants to go on a suicidal rampage and they have a weapon that will kill them and
many others quickly and in a short period of time before they can be killed, why wouldn't a disturbed individual use such weapons/armour?A kevlar vest could enable an individual to last longer before either he is killed by someone else or he runs out of targets and turns his weapon on himself. "At once" was very poor phrasing on my part and does sound very bombish. I was thinking more that the event would be over quickly, but in that time many could die before the killer could be stopped.
"In the case of guns, sure," indicates that you accept that citizens armed with guns will stop a rampage shooter armed with a gun. So, we can rule out firearms. You're now ruling out bombs. Exactly what weapon do you suppose the nutjob has, then?
OK:
But if a disturbed individual wants to go on a suicidal rampage and they have a weapon that will kill them and
many others quickly and in a short period of time before they can be killed, why wouldn't a disturbed individual use such weapons/armour?Isn't that exactly what happens now? Nutjob gets a gun, and proceeds to go someplace where they can use it to kill a lot of people before they are stopped? A tactical vest is not going to stop a headshot from killing them, nor a leg/arm shot from disabling or killing them, and anything more protective is
really going to stand out at the mall. So the risk of an armored nutcase going on a rampage is pretty low, I'd even venture to say negligible. And even if he does, somebody might have loaded AP this morning, "just in case." (the likelihood of that happening goes up with more armored nutjobs)
So getting back to your original point, this won't happen where weapons are allowed? Or is it more like an inverse relationship with gun freedom?