If the guy had to reload instead of getting off 100 rounds at a time, there is a chance the outcome may have been different. For sure, with the weapons, there was no possible outcome other than what happened. I honestly don't understand WHAT the defense is for having assault and automatic weapons. Just because the constitution gives us the right to bear arms, does that include nuclear bombs? Where do you draw the line to have a reasonable right to bear arms versus unrealistic absurdity. THERE IS NO REASONABLE REASON TO HAVE AUTOMATIC WEAPONS.
|