Joseph Meehan wrote:
So far I have only seen a couple of claims that privately owned
guns (legal or illegal) have been successfully used to stop such a
shooter. I have seen a few claims to that effect, but they have
been proven to be premature and wrong.

1. You ever heard of a mass shooting at a place where guns are common? A
police station or firing range? Freakoids are not THAT stupid.

2. There are academic papers on the subject. Here's one: "Multiple Victim
Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws:
Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement "

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=161637


Frankly since it appears the in most cases the guns were legally
owned, often by the shooter or a family member that it would appear
that reduced access to guns could well reduce shooting deaths.

Agreed. But your presumption that reduced shooting deaths is a good idea is
not shared by all.

The most use of illegally obtained guns involve gang-bangers killing each
other over drugs.



I know a lot of people believe the situation would only get worse
if criminals were not deterred buy the fear that someone might have a
gun; but I am unconvinced. Criminals are not all that smart to begin
with or they would not be doing what they are doing.

Yes they are. A study of crime in all 3050 counties in the U.S. both before
and after concealed handgun laws were passed showed (after passage) a
significant drop in person-on-person crime (rape, robbery, etc.) and an
up-tick in property crime (car theft, burglary, etc.).