The Folly of Unilateral Disarmament - At Fort Hood "more guns" assuredly were "the solution to gun violence."

Whew, for a minute I thought you might be supporting this article.

Good luck moderating the pro-gun folks.

If someone else at the processing center had a gun when Hasan started shooting, it seems likely that fewer people would have been killed or injured.

Perhaps. I don't really like this argument because it's very circumstantial. It gets trotted out whenever there is a mass shooting. I think it is somewhat likely if there are two armed people, one bent on massacre and one who will put a stop to it, then yes, there is a chance that the deranged gunman will be thwarted. However, in the "everybody is armed" scenario that gun advocates love so much, it seems even more likely that what began as a single deranged gunman would turn into a 26-gunman cluster@!$%# where nobody can tell friend from foe.

If nobody is allowed guns, then I want to know what was with the original reports that had several gunmen shooting in several different locations? All those witnesses can't have been mistaken that several people had guns.

Why did those other gunmen suddenly disappear? We were told one was dead, and at least one had been arrested.

If someone else at the processing center had a gun when Hasan started shooting, it seems likely that fewer people would have been killed or injured

If one replaces the word "likely" with "possibly" it's a valid point, but I think one that has been debated back and forth ad nauseum. The problem I have with this article is that it really says nothing new and what it does say, it does with the snide edge one usually associates with know it all 8th graders and pithy bumper stickers. It's trite and pretends to be profound.

In his defense, the author appears to be addressing similarly trite and tired arguments from the other side of the issue, but together it just comes out as noise, not reason.

On a totally unrelated note, what's this about leading him "to choose a different, softer target?"

I don't think the author was, in truth, suggesting this was better but setting up his argument that mass murderers of this sort come to places where they know people don't have guns. He's not arguing for school children getting shot, he's arguing for guns to become ubiquitous.

The one easy misconception about the Ft. Hood shootings is that it was much different from any other mass shooting. It was a man with a gun shooting at people who couldn't shoot back. An armed person on the scene at the time the shooting began might have been able to end the violence sooner, but that's not an automatic given. Whether it's an argument that they should have had the option, I'm not sure one can say because where this situation does differ is that it was on an Army base and when we talk about laws and rights, that does matter.

Either way, the article was kind of weak.

boons, there was a civilian police officer, the one that took down the shooter, so yes there were more than one gunman. I think fleeing soldiers were mistaken for participants in the shooting. Under fire, it would be difficult to fully understand exactly who was friend or foe. However, the entering civilian police officer could easily spot the lone person with the gun and was able to take him out. If more had been armed, well...

"If more had been armed, well..." - spoken by someone who has never seen combat.

If more were armed more would have been killed as people "thought" there were several gunmen because of the confusionand hearing echoes that sounded like other shots, etc.

If more people had guns they would have been shooting at - each other rather than the gunman (why do you think they call it :"friendly fire"?)

If more were armed more would have been killed....

Just to check, are you a clairvoyant? Precog? Psychic in any way?

I hear this argument but it holds no more water than the one you're refuting. The potential would certainly be there but there's no way to know for certain that the bodycount would have changed at all with the inclusion or absence of additional armed citizens.

LordFluffy is technically correct, eriq. Although if you want to further obfuscate the issue you could say something snazzy like "as more armed persons are added to the equation, the likelihood of potential additional shooters increases in a linear fashion."

I think I said it c;lear enough and anyone who had been in combat would back it up.

In the confusion of battle (as evidenced by the witnesses not agreeing on how many shooters were involved, etc) more shooters always results in more casualties; this is called friendly fire

While you can play this childish game that there is no absolute way to know; there is more than enough evidence to say 99+% that there will be more casualties