Armed citizens could cause carnage during shooting sprees

[toreskha]

The opinion that an armed citizen could possibly make anything worse is highly uninformed and doesn't draw upon real-world shootings. Generally, people run away from a shooter, which often makes them one of the more isolated people in the area. People also tend to actively seek cover and hide themselves to avoid becoming targets. This tendency will tend to help armed citizens to not hit anyone - because there's no one to hit if everyone but the gunman is hiding!

Most shooters are usually pretty bad shots, and often aren't really focused on anything in particular. Even if the citizen is a terrible shot and only fires in the general direction of the shooter, any one of the rounds that they fire has the potential to hugely reduce the number of rounds that the shooter can fire. Even if they only injure the shooter, that greatly increases the chance that he will either commit suicide or can be shot again or subdued. If they do happen to hit a bystander, it's more likely to be an injury and not a fatality, because they're not specifically aiming for a fatal shot - whereas, the shooter is aiming fatally.

It also draws the fire of the shooter and burns up their ammunition in one specific area - rather than all over the place, or taking shots at other people. If there happen to be two or more armed citizens who can shoot at the gunman from different angles, then it increases the chance of success exponentially.

Having more armed people who can direct fire at the shooter greatly decreases the chance of fatalities among the law-abiding public.

[ecocks]

However, an anti simply cannot get past the first stumbling block - the gun is NOT ALLOWED! Don't YOU understand that?!? (Sarcasm there folks.)

Is it just me or aren't a lot of these people the same ones who say that if we legalize drugs, the problem will mostly go away? Anyone else see an irony there?

And let me get this straight, wouldn't it actually be safer to shop with Feinstein, Kennedy, Moore and the other elite in these places? Wait a minute, do these people (and/or their bodyguards) get to carry into these same malls?

Enquiring minds want to know.....

[Unearthed]

As a person who carries nearly everywhere I go, I can tell you my biggest fear is the stigma attached to a gun. I find it very scary that if I draw my weapon in response to a person firing at random targets, it is very possible that others will unknowingly label me as another shooter simply because they connect firearms with bad guys. Or, I've also thought about others responding to the scene and shooting the first person they see with a firearm, which very well may be me.

It seems silly to think that an armed citizen returning fire wouldn't at the very least slow down an attackers rate of fire.

[whiptrackercracker]

It is true that some individuals equate gun with danger no matter what. I have a few officers here that get itchy when they see open carry, not as I can blame them with the things they have to deal with. But honestly its an instinctual response for everyone. Past cases where uniformed officers have come upon a scene where off duty or private citizens had guns drawn, the officers in all cases I could remember always followed their force matrix. Physical presence, warning, ect. Many states teach this to their ccw citizens too. However, I've heard many fellow ex-friends and others utter sentences that they would shoot anything with a gun during a panic. GRRR. Honestly I think the chances of running into another ccw person in the area during such a situation is probably pretty rare. Or at least it seems to be. Those cases when it has happened, people were able to recognize and coordinate easy enough. I would have to imagine that the whole mannerism, stance, and feel of someone with a weapon drawn for defense is going to stand out in contrast to a looney toon massacre nut. The police should follow procedure, assuming the commands given are followed.