It takes a gun to stop a gunman....?

Question

With today being the one year anniversary of the Virgina Tech shootings, some people believe lives could have been saved had some of the students inside the building been armed with their own weapons and stopped the gunman before he killed anymore victims.

Agree or disagree?

Answer 1

I agree, if you put a group of kids in a room with guns, then their gonna shoot evryone else with a gun, then the pple don't hve guns pick up the guns of the dead and shoot their killers, until theirs only a couple left

Answer 2

I mostly disagree - this is a classic case of hindsight, wishful thinking and armchair quarter backing.  Most of the people  saying this have never been in such a situation before, and I doubt that if even if they were there, and had a gun, that most would have been able to use their weapon to stop the gunman.

Statistics for home gun ownership show that you're much more likely to have your own gun used against you in the  situation of a home invader, as opposed to the home owner being able to actually use the gun successfully against the invader.  This doesn't even cover incidents of mistaken identity (e.g. kid trying to sneak in after curfew) or other accidents (little Timmy finds daddy's gun...)

Most people who own guns don't have proper training on their use or care, which potentially makes them more of a threat to those around them than a crazed gunman.  And now you're talking about a bunch of college students carrying concealed firearms in their backpacks?  Oh yeah, that sounds like a good idea.

I know lots of people have been saying "if only someone had a gun...they could have stopped the gunman."  However, that's not necessarily true.  While it is possible that things could have turned out as those people hoped, it's more likely that having someone pull a gun on the gunman would have caused him to shoot even more people - maybe even take the other person's gun as well.

If it became clear that the guy was going to methodically shoot everyone in the room, then the people could have responded in such a way that would have taken out the shooter without using guns of their own.  After all, what's a lone shooter going to do against a rushing mob of even 5 mostly untrained fighters?  I won't lie - people would still end up hurt or shot, but hopefully  the shooter would be incapacitated before he would have been able to more damage.

Problem is, most folks aren't trained to handle these situations, and even then, the basic information is "Do what what the gunman says" since most of the time you'd face someone with a gun would be in a robbery or mugging situation.  In most cases, it's not a good idea to antagonize someone with a gun.  You don't know what his purpose is - he could just want hostages, meaning if you don't do anything to him, he won't shoot.

Update:  Armed guards?!?  What is this supposed to be?  A school or a prison?  Yeah, my college had armed campus police, but we certainly didn't have them standing guard in the hallways...  Would YOU want to attend such a college?  Would you even think such a campus was safe if it literally needs a small army "just in case"?

Answer 3

People would have still panicked whether they had a gun or not....last thing you want is a room full of kids with guns in a state of abject panic...the death toll would have been much higher methinks...

Answer 4

I have to agree with the above statements..I think that there should have been more armed guards..I dont know if that would have even helped...its just all around tragic..I think in events like this its hard to predict somethings going to happen..