Not really. A terrorist attack tends to be an isolated 9i.e. few people and usually one), explosive event. It’s over before it is over. Concealed or open carry is pretty much irrelevant in those situations.
Tends, past tense, and I suspect you're referring to the example of America's domestic experience, which is limited when it comes to acknowledged terror attacks. Despite their draconian gun laws, in Israel there are numerous examples of armed attacks being stopped by armed citizens. Often teachers, cab drivers, security guards and the like. Had yesterday's attack in NYC been carried out against 4 citizens rather than LEOs, you'd have more mayhem than two injured and a dead perp. Ft Hood, a firearm would have stopped it earlier. Seattle Jewish Center, and multiple school shootings, same thing. Looking forward to non explosive lone wolf or small group attacks, an armed citizen is a major plus. We're not exempt from attacks on restaurants, bus stops, shopping centers and the like.
I don't agree. Say you're walking down a city street and a guy pulls out a gun and starts shooting, trying to kill as many people as possible before he dies and goes to Allah.
Having an armed citizen on the scene makes the difference between him killing many people and only getting one or two before he dies. I think that's a BIG difference in outcome.
Moreover, it became even an urban legend that more citizens are carrying, and that they are coating their bullets with pork fat, I think that even if the reports weren't true, it would have a chilling effect on these Jihadi attacks.
So are most muggings.
Tell that to a certain terrorist in Canada...