There would not have been more dead kids,
Says you? How do you know that someone else having a gun during the ordeal would not have provoked the gunner further and made him more aggressive? Or that the addition of the other gun causes someone to get hit by an added bullet fire (cause even the most trained people can make mistakes under pressure)? If we are going to play the what if game with the added guns, why ignore the negative possibilities (other than, it makes your point of view seem better)
I'm talking statistically over all potential shootings over time. Of course it's possible that something bad could happen. But then it's possible that a teacher could crash while driving a group of kids to a school event, killing several of them. Life is full of risks. I'm not ignoring the negatives. I'm arguing that the positives vastly outweigh them.
I linked to this in another thread. While not (yet) peer reviewed, the author does present his methodology and is in the process of having it reviewed. As far as he knows, he's the only person who's ever bothered to attempt to compile this kind of data. What's interesting is that he shows that when police end a potential or actual mass shooting, the average number of deaths is 14.29. When civilians end a potential or actual mass shooting, that number drops to 2.33. That's a massively significant difference. It pretty strongly supports the notion that the faster a shooting is ended, the fewer people die, and the most common way a shooting ends "fast" is when civilians intercede. Thus, it seems pretty logical that the best way to minimize the number of people who die in such shootings is to maximize the ability of civilians in the area to end said shooting. That leads us squarely into both concealed carry and removing restrictions on where weapons can be carried.
The likelihood that an armed civilian attempting to stop a shooter will actually increase the number of deaths is low. The likelihood that said armed civilian will decrease the number of deaths is high. It should not require a rocket scientists to noodle out why.
Edited, Jan 17th 2013 4:48pm by gbaji