Eloquent stomping of a dumbass wrong pro-gun message that went viral

[onenote]

44. Another example to use in discussions with those who claim that these events

only occur in places where the shooter doesn't expect to meet resistance and are stopped when they face armed resistance:

The attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan by John Hinckley.

Four people wounded when Hinckley confronts Reagan, who is surrounded by armed police and secret service.
Six shots fired in around 2 seconds, but Hinckley's weapon is a cheap 6 round .22 revolver.
He is wrestled to the ground by an unarmed labor executive, not by the armed men protecting the president

So, what saved people's lives (although did not prevent them from being shot) wasn't the presence of armed protection. What stopped the shooting wasn't the intervention of those armed protectors. What saved lives was that Hinckley used a lousy weapon. Now imagine what the result would have been had he used a semi automatic weapon like a glock with a magazine with between 18 and 30 rounds.
Before anyone could have gotten to him, he would have squeezed of between 3 and 5 times as many rounds. More people would have been hit. Fatalities would have been inevitable. In all likelihood the unarmed person that wrestled him to the ground would have been shot as well.

A cheap revolver such as that used by Hinckley can be lethal, no doubt. But the argument for putting semi-automatic weapons with large magazines in civilian hands makes no sense.