Would packing a gun stop mass killings?

[111kg]

That's just it: these mass shootings aren't about killing people. They're about getting attention.

We keep trying to place the blame on the tools, while ignoring the motivation/purpose.

Or about getting revenge. Although they aren't confirmed, there are a lot of rumors about some of the shooters. Most of them had been bullied for most of their lives and, at some point, thought that killing the bullies and themselves was the best thing they could do.

It's a sad thing that stuff like this happens and there aren't too many ways of solving the problem.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

When liberals are asked how their versions of gun control changes would have stopped the mass killing in Roseburg last week, they draw a blank, and regurgitate the same old liberal, gun control rhetoric.

And when conservatives support ownership of guns they claim packing a gun would dissuade or at least make such killings have a smaller body count.

So I ask: Would packing heat dissuade mass killers from doing their evil?

Many mass killers have stated that they chose their targets precisely because they knew there would be no resistance. So it might have stopped them from choosing that location, but probably wouldn't have stopped them.

Seat belts don't stop car crashes. Smoke detectors don't stop fires. And guns probably won't stop an attack.

But they can help mitigate the damage and, hopefully, save at least a few of the potential victims.

The question shouldn't be whether or not they'd stop an attack, but whether or not people at least have the right to try to protect themselves. Clearly, they do, as Blackstone, Rutherford, Montesquieu, etc and the Founders all argued that life and the right to protect it is a natural and unalienable right.