The shooter would be safer
"Safer" than WHAT?
Safer than if he were home, watching TV??
if he carries a gun as evidenced by his killing the other person
I 'm not so sure about the evidence
We don 't know what happened.
The person shot would be safer if he carried a gun
in which case he could have killed the original shooter rather than being killed himself.
That is 1 of the possibilities.
When I was shot at, the shooter fled (very swiftly) as soon as he saw
that his victim pulled out a shiny revolver for self defense.
Thay did not give me time to line up a shot.
( I heard a scream b4 thay left. It sounded like "gun" was mentioned
but the sound was blurred
, so I can 't be sure. )
If the decedent had been armed, he 'd have had a better chance
to control the situation. That might have saved his life.
That is what emergency equipment is for.
Sometimes, the mere sight of defensive firepower
has been enuf to scare off predators. It has even worked with animals,
but u might need to touch off a round in front of him.
parados wrote:U r distorting the definition of hypocrisy;
Your hypocrisy is in arguing that someone carrying a gun is safer
when this case would only lead to one of the other probably being killed. [non-sequitur; identity counts.]
shame on u!
Hypocrisy means pretending to believe something
that u do not
actually believe. I have remained innocent of that.
If neither had a gun, no one would have been killed which directly contradicts your argument.
, yeah, right
, because no one ever got killed b4 guns were invented
always obays anti-gun laws because thay are MUCH
to please the government than thay are to remain alive!!!