So you continue to ignore the specific examples upthread where EXACTLY THAT VERY THING has happened? Gee, there’s a shock. Not.
Nothing has stopped the mass killings from happening. The problem with this sort of thing is that people who are accepted into their community and are apparently hard workers, fine citizens (and so on) -- all of a sudden, do these kinds of mass killings.
Consider the Orlando mass shooting. The guy went back to a place where he worked two years before and shot up the place. Then there is that guy who went to Tualatin to shoot up a place where his estranged wife worked, and did that and shot himself, plus wounding several other people.
The element of surprise and one not expecting it from that sort of person and then how quick they do it -- it's over in short order.
If anything, these types of things seem to be on the increase.
And, in fact, these kinds of mass killings from the general public (where they've got some sort of unknown problem that no one can see) is hard to detect ahead of time.
On the other hand, an organized terrorist group that will make plans for a terrorist attack and organize the whole thing ahead of time has a higher chance of being stopped ahead of time, than the simple "American mass killing" does. There are the adequate warning signs as there would be for a planned terrorist attack.
So, you'll never stop these kinds of mass killings. The element of surprise is in their favor, people cannot react fast enough even if they are armed and when they stop (or are stopped by someone else) several people are dead.
Actually there are dozens - if not hundreds - of incidents that did not become "mass killings" because an armed citizen intervened and stopped it at simply a killing or multiple killing before it became a "mass killing".
“Nothing has stopped the mass killings from happening.”
Do you mean completely stop them from occurring at all? That’s a strawman. People have been killing each other in large numbers since there were people. If guns are banned, they’ll just use something else. In fact, there are many FAR more effective weapons for mass killing than guns. Guns are just easier (but not by much). No, I won’t go into details besides saying that all you need is a couple hundred bucks and a hardware store to do some awful damage.
Do you mean nothing has stopped a single mass killing from happening? Again, a strawman. Impossible to prove a negative. Will you acknowledge the possibility that at least on PO’d nutjob decided not to go on a shooting spree in, say, a former workplace because he knew there were armed people there? If not, why do politicians get armed security guards?
How about limiting the damage of mass killings? Well, that has happened several times. Here is an example where a plain old citizen with a CCW permit stopped a person bent on mass killing in his tracks: http://dustinsgunblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/nv-mass-shooting-stopped-by-ccw-permit.html Several other examples were given up thread. Will you at least acknowledge these factual incidents?
If you do, does stopping at least some mass killers in their tracks a good thing? If not, why not? If so, welcome on board with the pro-2nd and pro-carry crowd!
Re-reading the thread, many of your points are factually OK, if a bit odd. (People who want to kill others can’t be completely stopped? Of course.) Do you realize why you got the reaction you did, though? Those same points and twisted versions of them are standard gun-grabber fare. That, and you started the thread with a gun-grabber BS filled article.
It’s confusing, and frankly not very effective.