1. Your correction has been my point the "last 9 pages". The primary concern is to prevent mass shootings, not reduce the fatalities.
Says who? I think there's 10 families in Newtown who would be more than happy if we'd manage to reduce the number of children who died from 20 to 10.
2. You stated "potential mass shootings". "Prevent" wasn't meant to be taken as an absolute. If your solution PREVENTED a "potential mass shooting" from occurring, then it PREVENTED a potential mass shooting.
Because I don't want to get caught up in yet another semantic argument. Some nutter has already tried to make issue with the use of the word "prevent". Also, I don't want people trying to play games with the definition of "mass shooting". It's a tricky semantic situation when you have to carefully pick your words because you're posting on a forum where the slightest mistake, no matter how clear your intent was, will be taken out of context and twisted around.
If I say that an armed civilian with a concealed firearm may be able to end a mass shooting, then folks like Joph will jump in with the Mother Jones study showing how few mass shootings end with armed civilian intervention. This is because a "mass shooting" is defined as a single shooting event in which there are 4 or more victim fatalities. So any intervention of an armed civilian which stopped the shooting short of 4 victim fatalities doesn't count as "ending a mass shooting".
If I say that an armed civilian with a concealed firearm may be able to prevent
a mass shooting (preventing 4 people from being killed and thus becoming a mass shooting in the first place), nutters like yourself will ignore the mass shooting definition Joph uses and argue in terms of shooting in general. You'll say that since it's unlikely for the armed civilian to be right there and stop the shooter before he can shoot anyone, he's therefore not going to be able to "prevent" the mass shooting.
I used the phrasing I did to try to avoid repeating the same silly semantic BS you guys keep tossing at me. Of course, even when I do this, someone like Lolgaxe will jump in with "but a reserve member of the military isn't a civilian!" argument. Sigh...
So, I ask again, how does having a concealed weapon prevent a "potential mass shooting" any more beneficially than an armed guard? If anything, I would rather have an armed guard as a deterrent.
Stop saying "prevent a potential mass shooting". As I pointed out above, you're changing my words so as to create a strawman. It may reduce the number of fatalities in a mass shooting or potential mass shooting. Again, I'm using that language, not because it's concise, and not because it's necessary, but because there are a handful of posters here who are freaking idiots.
I've already answered this. To you directly IIRC. It's funny how you guys get pissed that repeat myself, but then you keep asking the exact same questions I've already answered (or continue to argue as though I'd never answered). There are multiple reasons:
1. Armed guards cost money. lessening restrictions on where people can concealed carry guns allow those people to be in any random area while costing us nothing.
2. Armed guards cannot be everywhere. Same deal. There's a chance of a person with a concealed carry gun being in any area at any time, as long as that area isn't one designated as as gun free zone.
3. Armed guards are obviously armed guards, so shooters will tend to start shooting where they are not (or shoot the guard first). A shooter can't know if there's someone with a concealed weapon nearby when he starts shooting, and even if he suspects there might be, he doesn't know who and thus can't really do anything to avoid them.
There are probably more reasons than that, but those are the first and most obvious 3 that just pop out at me. Edited, Jan 24th 2013 6:29pm by gbaji