Suppose the church goers were armed to the teeth?
This white kid stands up and starts firing. Another member whips out his pistol and starts shooting at the him. A second member in the back row not realizing fully what is happening first spots his fellow parishioner taking a shot at the white kid. So he then takes aim on that person. Yet a third thinking all hell is breaking loose then starts firing their own weapon at who the hell knows who. Even more people start whipping out their pistols and on and on it goes. In the end the carnage could have ending up looking like the OK Corral.
I find it perplexing why people are still buying into this theory that more people carrying more guns equates in anyway with greater safety. In 2013 I posted linking to this ' Mother Jones article which said, "A recent study looking at 30 years of homicide data in all 50 states found that for every one percent increase in a state's gun ownership rate, there is a nearly one percent increase in its firearm homicide rate."
Why Banks Got Rid Of Armed Guards In The Lobby
It wasn't just because of the costs. They realized anyone coming into a bank with the intention of robbing it knew they'd have to face those guards down. Thus robbers in those days came in them guns blazing. Since that time bank robberies have neither gone down nor up, but deaths from bank robberies are nearly null.
In short. The more guns, the greater risk the ill tempered and those on drugs will be using them.
Knowing how many mass shootings are stopped by an armed person is a bit like knowing how many ships were saved by a lighthouse.
ReplyDeleteIf a prospective mass shooting is averted by an armed person how do we track say a single person shooting that would have been mass shooting if not for being taken down?