More on that Mother Jones article one of your friends posted:
Liz Blankenship: Fun with Statistics: Mother Jones reported that in 62 cases of mass killings, none were stopped by an armed civilian. Whereas Larry Correia states that "The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5." Turns out, Mother Jones' analysis includes only events in which more than 4 people were killed. It's the rather obvious logical problem that if the killer is stopped before he kills lots of people, it never becomes a true mass shooting, so by definition, their analysis excluded any evidence contrary to their conclusion. (thank you Jane)
So, one has to question their motives, since picking that arbitrary cutoff was obviously deliberate--does this mean they prefer to see children die than citizens armed? If not, why deliberately exclude successes?
Point 2: Police are "civilians." If we wish to stop the militarization of police, we need to get away from the notion that police are somehow special and above the rest of us.
You can see the historical list here:
The Bath attack in the 1920s involved dynamite. Most incidents are 1-2 people, sometimes a murder suicide. There are some interesting observations:
The rise in body counts parallels two things: Glamorization of shooters with 24 hour news feeds, cable, satellite and the internet, so just maybe some "reasonable" restrictions on free press should be a matter of discussion, and...
Bans on legally owned guns in schools (since for some reason, people bent on violence ignore posted signs to the contrary).
The large body counts are in well to do liberal areas with low crime and no armed presence in schools. The inner cities, who already HAVE cops in schools, have occasional onesies and twosies, but no mass engagements (And again, the US has a third of a billion people).
Average body count with no armed responder present: 14
Average body count with an armed responder present: 2.5
(And easy to check Larry's numbers long term as well as just short term).
Now, when there is a violent crime of any kind in a school, there is GOING to be an armed response.
So, would you rather that response was 10 minutes later, or 20 seconds?
Take your time.
Then see this comparison between police and fire response, vis a vis cultural acceptance, by one of the world's leading experts on the psychology of armed force:
Final point: killers seeking headlines tend to avoid places where they can't get a high body count. So yes, in fact, (a certain amount of) more guns IS the answer, because the killers are going to find access to guns, dynamite, cars, or whatever else it takes to make their headlines--any high school chemistry student can figure out Sarin nerve gas, and while not effective on moving adults in the Tokyo Subway, it could be DEVASTATING on small children in an enclosed room.
This is not to suggest all teachers should be armed, or school students. But observable data indicate a couple of modestly trained personnel first act as deterrent, then act as immediate response.
And the shooters don't seem to "target the defenders first." But even if they do--that's EXACTLY THE POINT of having a defense. Shots fired at professionals are shots not fired at victims.
Final, final point: Neither Sandy Hook nor Columbine involved an assault weapon, by federal or state definition. So renewing a ban on "Assault weapons" will have no effect because it didn't. I covered that in detail in a separate post which I'll be happy to share--it has nothing to do with political position and everything to do with technical definitions and practicality.