"In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun."

[sarisataka]

134. OK, I read the article

and I find it to be very self serving. They are extremely selective about which data they wish to consider.

--Armed citizen stops shooter- doesn't count the shooting had 'subsided'. So the armed prep who surrendered was not going to kill anyone else...
--armed citizen stops shooter too early- doesn't count, we need four dead before it is a mass shooting.

They also have factual inaccuracies which makes me question what else they article claims is wrong. The most glaring is describing spree killers as serial killers. Absolutely wrong, virtually no serial killers are spree killers; Jack the Ripper may arguably have been one. Many mass murders are spree killers, including in the CT murders. (I refuse to give the animals the decency of naming them. IMO they are not human enough to deserve names)

To say armed civilians stop these very rarely is accurate, say maybe 5%, I don't have the ability to extensively research it at this time. There have also been cases where armed civilians have not fired due to concerns about bystanders yet we repeatedly hear the claims of it will be just like Dodge City.

Mind you I do not think giving every person in the US is a solution either. Most people would never use it even to save themselves. We must honestly look at all possibilities and solutions to form a lasting solution to the issue of violence in this country. If we choose to focus on gun violence first, that is fine but it is only a partial part of the problem.