Rattrap
Doesn't feed trolls and would appreciate it if you
They are not.common sense and logic should be plenty of evidence.
This assumes a great deal of rationality on part of the shooter, which is not a given.A person with a gun firing into a crowd of people without a gun has nothing to fear. If he opened fire and suddenly bullets were zipping by his head he wouldn't be quite so bold now would he? he would have to hide and take cover which would take away his ability to fire into the mass of people.
Source?There are real life examples of that. That as soon as a mad gunman is confronted by someone who is armed the massacre stops, he retreats and/or takes his own life.
I'm asking honestly, not to be confrontational. The argument that more guns creates safer conditions (i.e., less crime/injury/fatalities) because of the examples you're positing is one of the biggest for gun proliferation. If it is factually supported, I'd personally be swayed. However, most of the statistics I've seen suggests otherwise (from the US and abroad) - but I'm no statistician (though enough to know that there's more to it than the information I've seen) and I know most analyses will be heavily biased to one side or the other. This is not a question that can be adequately answered by hypotheticals.