[Teacher317]

The former: someone had a gun and stopped the intruder and only a couple of people died.
The later: no one had a gun and the perp killed nine people.
Conclusion: banning guns is not the solution.

I saw a stat (on FR I think, but I cannot find a cited source) that said that mass shootings where an on-duty policeman was the first to shoot back averaged 12.4 dead per event... and those mass-shootings where someone else was the first to shoot back averaged 4.8 dead per event.

IF true and cited by a reliable source (and it certainly SEEMS true), then we need to be hammering this stat daily, in every public and media forum.

[dhs12345]

Exactly. How many people would have died without an armed police officer at the “draw Mohammad” seminar in Texas?

Although, it isn’t clear if some of the participants were armed too. It is Texas after all. I bet that all future like events will have at least one armed person. Maybe everyone.

The point is that the quickest solution to this kind of violence is to make sure that someone (police, civilian) is armed. Why? Because the government will never be able to control the random acts of violence. And the police cannot be everywhere all of the time.