If guns were outlawed then only outlaws would have guns.
Criminals do not obey existing gun control laws so adding more won't make a difference to the criminal element but instead will only hinder those who already abide by the laws.
That's true,
And it is a point that is already highlighted in the article first linked.
Officials said he did not have a license to carry guns.
that's actually a hyper-link to this article:
https://www.ksat.com/news/texas-chu...sons-skull-pointed-gun-at-wife-air-force-says
He was a criminal, there was an element of gun control in place (he could not legally own one.) but he still had guns. - the point is not that gun control doesn't work, but that poor gun control, badly enforced does not work.
As I said before cars, a few people may drive illegally, or in a criminal way but we actively try to find those people.
and it's probably not just because the police get the money from tickets, it's because if we just let people speed, because a few would anyway. if we just let people go with car with no brake lights, if we just let people go who don't have road worthy cars, then a lot more people would die in traffic accidents as a result...
It is a similar situation with guns, by not policing effectively "we" (well "you" as I'm not in the US) allow these gun deaths to occur.
I did see a controversial point in the link, tho. It was about if it is bad that the killer had guns (including pistols) or good that the rescuer who confronted him had one, a point raised in relation to gun control, and if it affects the opinion of allowing or banning guns.
Not sure about the killer's part of the above equation, but I'm at least sure it was a good thing the rescuer was there to confront him. If it wasn't for him, death count could have been much more. I'm glad he was there for that.
This is something that is often said, the only thing that can protect you from a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
but really it is not all that simple or true. (at least not universally true, - there are plenty of cases where people are accidentally killed by the good guy with the gun.)
*most* people, (including people who spend loads of time on the range) are just not conditioned to be able to think properly under fire. - that's why they don't just hand you a gun and send you on your way to war if you join the police or military. they train you. extensively, live fire exercises.
those forces that train for situations like this, (I.e how to deal with terrorist situations, mass shootings etc) are trained whilst being shot at.
The reality of the situation of the good guy having a gun in a mass shooting is a bit more bleak than take out the shooter save the hostages, "mission complete";
The good guy will be basically shooting into the crowd, and is more likely to hit someone else than the actual shooter.
The good guy will be a guy holding a gun at a mass shooting, and is more likely to be shot by police thinking that he is the shooter.
In this case the shooter was ex-military, so there is a real good reason to believe that he would have simply been a better shot, and coped with the stress of being under fire better than random passer by with a gun.
In this situation the good guy apparently managed to wound the shooter, but the shooter still drove away and took his own life later.
Basically, this doesn't really tell you either way, the best case scenario here is, good guy saves crowd by wounding shooter causing him to flee.
the worst case is, man endangers crown by firing into/through crowd with lethal weapon managing to mildly hurt other man.
the good guy with a gun, did of course do a good thing, I'm not taking that away from him, just pointing out that it's not as simple as turn up and hero the sit