Just think, if the people had had CCW's and were armed he may have been stopped before the shooting started.
In all honesty, even if they did we probably would never have heard about it. I have seriously tried before to sit down and recall anything that anyone in the major media has ever said about guns in a positive light and guess what, I got nothing. Let's take a look at this scenario.
1. Guy walks into office screaming with a shotgun.
2. Law-abiding citizen with CCW feels his/her life is in imminent danger, shoots the guy with the shotgun.
3. All of a sudden, the person who initiated the attack by barging into an office building with a loaded weapon, with the intent to murder innocent people, is the victim in the major media's eyes. The rest of the sheeple join hands and chant their usual anti-gun lyrics.
4. Guy with shotgun lives/dies and he/his family ends up with a lawsuit on the company for allowing someone with a legally concealed weapon on the premises.
Since the media pretty much controls the minds of millions of people, they need only place the blame on the wrong person to get their agenda through, something they have done before and will continue to do. I wish for the sake of those harmed by this tragedy and their families that someone would have been carrying and could have stopped this madman, but the media would still have shown everything how they percieved it to be.
One question, though, did the guy have some sort of criminal or psychological history. If not, how can they claim that this would have done any good. In all actuality, how effective are background checks and cooling periods in the prevention of crimes of passion. I know there have to be many ways to obtain a weapon with relative ease, all the while bypassing these checkpoints, since the majority of criminals don't care about doing these things legally anyway.
I must apologize for this little rant but I dispise all major news outlets since it is no longer about the news, but about ratings and politics.
