Examples why the "hero-with-a-gun"-fantasy doesn't work:

[DetlefK]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/03/1427420/-Armed-Vet-proves-NRA-wrong-and-explains-why-he-didn-t-confront-Oregon-Killer-with-Good-Guy-Gun?showAll=yes

Turns out, there were multiple good-guys-with-a-gun on the scene when the mass-shooting at Umpqua Community College happened. They just decided to not join the fray.

Why?

“Luckily we made the choice not to get involved,” he explained. “We were quite a distance away from the building where this was happening. And we could have opened ourselves up to be potential targets ourselves, and not knowing where SWAT was, their response time, they wouldn’t know who we were. And if we had our guns ready to shoot, they could think that we were bad guys.”

Or other good-guys-with-a-gun might have mistaken him for a shooter.

Or some innocent person might accidently get shot:
Norman Williamson carried a concealed gun for self-protection. One evening, his group of friends got into an argument with a group of strangers. One of the strangers pulled out a gun and opened fire. Norman Williamson returned fire in self-defense and accidently killed a bystander. He got a sentence of 25 years, despite shooting back in self-defense only after the attacker had already opened fire.

Or the mass-shooter might kill the concealed-carrier and gain an additional gun and ammo:
When Jared and Amanda Miller went on a shooting-rampage in Las Vegas, gun-carrying Joseph Wilcox tried to stop them and was killed.

Yes, there are stories of people using household firearms to defend themselves from intruders. In that circumstance, the homeowner has several advantages: They know the building and room layout, even in the dark, better than any intruder could, for example. It's not that concealed carry never works. But on a school campus with hundreds of people, any of whom may be a potential victim or a potential shooter, adding additional armed persons of unknown intent into that situation is again is not optimal.

[Ilsa]

1. When used for home protection, which I believe

is the original reason for owning a gun, it probably tends to work well. Out in public, it's all a crapshoot as to the final outcome: accidentally killing someone with a concealed weapon that goes off, killing the wrong person in self defense, being targeted by other GGWG, or being targeted by police.

[krispos42]

2. Because the good guy with a gun is not, despite the sneering comments of some...

... a Rambo wannabe.

The pro-control side has the luxury, apparently, of being able to criticize CCW permittees for Rambo-like fantasies AND for not behaving like Rambo when shit happens. Mocking them for being so foolish and paranoid and afraid that they carry a gun, then mocking them for not going "Die Hard" on the bad guys when those fears are realized.

Of course, they themselves don't carry because they're Rambo-wannabes, and they're planning on using their gun only to defend themselves if pressed by need.

But they don't get asked, do they? No, they get TOLD what they're motives are by smug people behind a keyboard ago who thinks Zimmerman is some kind of typical standard of behavior.

If I had been in an adjacent building, or classroom, on campus, with a gun, I certainly would have sheltered in place behind a barricaded door.

Why?

Because I'm not a cop and I have no desire to die or kill.

[Kaleva]

5. Use of a gun should always be the last resort.

Retreat or hiding, if possible, is always the better option. I can see the rationale behind the castle laws but the stand your ground laws are silly IMHO.

[beevul]

7. Duty to retreat laws are the definition of uncivilized.

They presume to dictate a course of action for times when events can have a billion variables.

NOBODY should be required to retreat. Ever.

Not to mention how a requirement to retreat might just enable certain criminal mindsets.


Fuck.All.That.

[krispos42]

8. That is a given

Shooting somebody in legitimate self-defense still entails a legal and psychological mess for the survivor.


SYG.... it's complicated.

[ileus]

3. I thought gun banners didn't want CHP holders trying to be hero's???

First they whine because folks carry personal life saving devices, now they whine because they didn't play hero with a gun.

There's just no pleasing these folks, it's like they have an agenda...

[DetlefK]

4. Nobody is whining that they should have joined the shooting.

[Straw Man]

9. Rightly so.

But the "hero with a gun" fantasies emanate from your side of the issue.

Have you taken classes in armed self-defense? If you had, you'd know they teach that only trained SWAT should run toward the sound of the gunfire. An armed citizen should hunker down and wait it out. The time to shoot is when and if the assailant busts down the door and starts executing everyone.

[Eleanors38]

6. You are laboring under an illusion...

Carrying a gun is chiefly about personal self-defense. It is NOT social policy. Sometimes an armed civilian can and has thwarted crimes in public places, or lessened the havoc caused by the criminal. But that is not the main reason for carrying a gun: it is and always has been a self-defense measure.