“You might duck and be too late.”
You missed my point. She said in the video what happens if people are allowed to carry guns and a crazed killer comes in shooting people and then lawfully armed people pull out their guns and start shooting back. Then her question was, what are the rest of us supposed to do? Duck? My point was that even if lawfully armed citizens were not shooting back, that’s all she’s going to do anyways is duck...
I find her distorted, tortured logic disturbing on many levels; She would rather not fight back? She would rather others (other than law enforcement) not be able to fight back, possibly to her benefit. She would rather be a victim to a crazed mass murderer killing innocent than be bothered with the idea that others had the ability to stop that crazed killer. She would rather her safety be totally on the shoulders of police? Who don’t have to risk their lives for yours. I would rather be part of the solution, and try to stop the evil doer.
Heck, I would rather be accidentally hit by the bullet of a “friendly” citizen fighting back, while fighting the evil doer, than to just be victimized by the evil doer. To claim it is best not to fight back is, in this case, immoral. Pacifism is not moral high ground.