I am not an advocate for banning guns, but I do believe that they should all be licensed and anyone who buys should be subject to a real background check. It won’t keep all the guns away from the crooks because a lot of them steal their guns or get their girlfriends to buy them, but having those programs is better than nothing.
The VT shooter never planned to survive his assault and neither did the Columbine kids. I highly doubt Cho’s understanding that his victims could include armed resistance would have stopped him. He just would have bought a vest and upped his arsenal.
I don’t disagree that an armed populace might slow down certain crooks, but that won’t deter an irrational madman. Especially not one who spends a lot of time in planning.
A good percentage of police officers who die by gunfire get killed with their own guns. And they have access to holsters with retention features as well as substantial training in gun retention habits.
With handguns, gunfights that take place at distances greater than 3 feet generally have very low rates of effective hits. The average citizen with a handgun is probably more of a threat to themself and their loved ones than they are to a determined crook.
I like guns, I like shooting, and I’ve owned guns for use in my past occupations (military and police officer) and for the heck of it. I decided to divest my household of guns for safety reasons when I had little kids. I am of the opinion that unless the gun-owner is practicing at a combat range at least a couple times a year the only thing having it in their hands will do is intimidate a coward. They’re kidding themselves if they think any different. They’re better off with a folding knife.
The average 16-year old gangsta doesn’t have enough brains to be that coward, and neither does the madman. As for the libertarian types who want guns to defend themselves from their government, they’re welcome to have at it as far as I’m concerned.