Originally Posted by meek
Would it have been better if he had been shot and killed? Hypocracy is great, sacrifice to prove the relevency of 2nd ammendent rights is better.
No, if the senator was shot and killed...
a.) anti-gun advocates could use it to their advantage. They could ask for even stronger gun control, because a senator was killed by the intruders. It would be easy to spin, since another gun was used in a crime. Since he used a gun to SAVE his life, it becomes nearly impossible to spin against the 2nd amendment. The situation played out as good as it could've for everyone involved.
b.) a life would've been taken. Just because this man is misguided in his 2nd amendment beliefs, it doesn't mean he deserves to die.