OR they could just rush him and take him down, like the passengers on Flight 93 did. Yes, he'd shoot some of them. But one man against a mob is ALWAYS a losing proposition for the one man.
The passengers and crew on Flight 93 weren't a mob, they were hostages. Those individuals who decided to fight back against the terrorists weren't part of a mob, they were patriots. How are these two situations analogous? The people on Flight 93 had time to gather information, formulate a plan, and take a vote about whether or not they should act. The patrons of the nightclub were under fire by a determined murderer. If a member of law enforcement or the military, someone with some training, had been at the nightclub, they might have had the presence of mind to try to stop the killing. But I can't imagine ordinary civilians, who are not in a war zone, coming under fire like this and attempting what you describe.
I am in favor of more restrictions on the purchase of semiautomatic weapons but it's unclear that they would have made a difference, at least in this case. He would undoubtedly have passed muster--the FBI interviewed the shooter twice and didn't find conclusive evidence that he posed a threat. Yet he did.
It would be nice if members of Congress could get their heads out of their asses and figure out a way to prevent the people on the No-Fly list, people who have been designated a threat, from purchasing weapons legally. It wouldn't have helped in this case but it might save lives down the line.
Er, you can get on the "No-Fly" list for almost any reason. Multiple investigations and examples have shown that the No-Fly list does not just include people who are a threat. The very fact that the list is kept secret and the mechanisms by which people are selected is secret, and there is no real methodology in place for CHALLENGING your place on the list? Makes the list an UTTERLY unacceptable measurement for pretty much anything. Including who should or should not be able to fly.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
The passengers and crew on Flight 93 weren't a mob, they were hostages. Those individuals who decided to fight back against the terrorists weren't part of a mob, they were patriots. How are these two situations analogous? The people on Flight 93 had time to gather information, formulate a plan, and take a vote about whether or not they should act. The patrons of the nightclub were under fire by a determined murderer. If a member of law enforcement or the military, someone with some training, had been at the nightclub, they might have had the presence of mind to try to stop the killing. But I can't imagine ordinary civilians, who are not in a war zone, coming under fire like this and attempting what you describe.
I am in favor of more restrictions on the purchase of semiautomatic weapons but it's unclear that they would have made a difference, at least in this case. He would undoubtedly have passed muster--the FBI interviewed the shooter twice and didn't find conclusive evidence that he posed a threat. Yet he did.
It would be nice if members of Congress could get their heads out of their asses and figure out a way to prevent the people on the No-Fly list, people who have been designated a threat, from purchasing weapons legally. It wouldn't have helped in this case but it might save lives down the line.
no subject