Reply #19: Deterrence is not the point.

[57_TomCat]

iverglas said: The idea that such individuals will be deterred by the off chance that someone on the premises will have a firearm is rather silly.

The key is not that the offender may or may not be deterred. It is instead what an armed citizen (or official) might be able to do to prevent the offender from continuing the rampage. You also stated: "...Kimveer Gill killed himself after police interrupted his plans by shooting and injuring him before he could do more than kill one people and seriously injure some others." I believe Gill would have probably done the same thing had the armed responders been regular citizens in lieu of the local constabulary.

This is a perfect example of how a "armed" citizen can prevent further bloodshed. I as a police officer know that I am most likely NOT going to be around when the stink hits the fan. I also know that the vast majority of mass shootings are stopped when ARMED people show up. Bad guys often kill themselves or quit when they find out they have a fight on their hands. Well I am for allowing more citizens to be armed as a first responder to assist the bad guys with making that decision.