but why isn't this terrorism? Clearly a politically motivated attack...whats up?
Last i checked, terrorism is only allowed on religious grounds, haven't you heared >_>
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that even if armed security wasn't there the exact same amount of people would have been injured/or killed? Because I can guarantee you that if armed officers weren't there. We wouldn't be reading about multiple injuries, we would be reading about multiple fatalities.
Not to diminish the responce and actions of said 2 officers, they did only shoot back AFTER he seems to have emptied his magazine correct? I
have no idea about possible other weapons this person may have carried, but this does indicate that regardless of armed presence the actual shooting and victims would have been the same.
You kinda got it, hence I asked "Did he have any other weapons?". From reports thusfar I have gathered that reaction from armed officers happended after him shooting, as happens in most cases of shootings. We will likely never know what would have transpired if the attacker wasn't incapacitated as fast as he was, I am rather just trying to burst the bubble of the idea that any armed presence could totally prevent such incident from happening.
I've always been a firm believer that you are never safe, only safer. Carrying a firearm doesn't make one immune from attack or bodily harm, but it could very well mean the difference between being carried out in a stretcher vs a body bag.