So, there's an active shooter in the school, as far as we know trying to kill as many people as possible, and I shouldn't be armed because I *might* not be able to hit the guy? Or because I *might* have a stray that hits someone unintentionally? Yes, we should live in fear of what *might* happen and do nothing instead of trying to prevent what we see happening right in front of our eyes.
That quote from the Slimes writer was so incredibly stupid, it doesn't dignify an answer. But to be a NY Slimes columnist is to be a stranger to reality.
But I'll have at it. The writer assumes the nut shooting is an expert who can hit anything but another person would not be. At close quarters a handgun is an excellent weapon. It doesn't matter if the rifle bullet can travel three times faster than a bullet from a handgun. At close quarters neither shooter could dodge an accurate shot.
The writer assumes that a teacher or trained person/guard with a handgun (or shooters) could not sneak up on the shooter and kill him.
In short, the writer is assuming that everybody armed with just a handgun is an incompetent boob, while the nut will be able to hit anything that moves.
But moreover, what we do know is that most of teachers and students at Parkland
were sitting ducks!!! If one person has a gun and lots of ammo and the people he is hunting have none, it is like shooting fish in a barrel for the nut.
Just one person firing back at the nut, whether he hits the nut or not, might cause the shooter to stop for a while before proceding or maybe even stop altogether and leave the building.
It is also entirely possible the person or person with handguns might kill or disable the nut.
In the final analysis, what scenario would you want if a nut entered the building no matter how well-armed......totally defenseless or a few people with handguns?
Without a doubt I think the overwhelming majority of sane people would be happy to have people in the school armed with any kind of gun, handgun or flintlock rather than being totally defenseless.