The argument against “allowing” civilians to be armed against terrorists: they would be completely ineffective. Worse, they might shoot the wrong person. Or be shot by responding police. And there is a “danger” that “untrained” civilians would accidentally shoot someone in the normal course of carrying a firearm. The possibility that an armed civilian would shoot the wrong person or the cops would shoot an innocent armed civilian during an active shooter event is what it is. But the rest of the objections are just plain wrong. Fatal negligent discharges in public are as rare as hen’s teeth. As for the effectiveness of armed defense against terrorists, I’ll let TTAG commentator JR in NC explain . . .
The point of returning fire, of have the ‘ability’ to return fire, is not to magically have one armed citizen kill five terrorists armed with full auto AK’s.
The point of returning fire, any fire at all is … RETURNING FIRE. It is “disruptive,” and it takes total operational control away from the terrorists.
There are many ways this could be beneficial.
** You could hit one the terrorists and wound/kill him. That changes the good guy : bad guy ratio.
** You could provide sufficient diversion for at least some of innocents to escape.
** You could provide sufficient diversion for some innocents to fight back somehow, even without firearms.
** At the very least, you provide a psychological thorn in the minds of people expecting total operational control. You get inside their OODA Loop and wreak a little havoc. It may be temporary, but it is something.
Bottom line: something – a gun – is better than nothing. Millions of Americans understand this. Those who don’t, the ones who seek to degrade and destroy their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, are condemning members of the public – both armed and disarmed – to certain death.