I can guarantee the slaughter would have been stopped had it happened on the college campus I am on right now, or twenty years ago when I was the same age as many of the defenseless students.

Shutting down speech you don't agree with is typical of the Stalinist Left.

3. All that is needed to reduce mass shooting events is for the psychotic shooter to face the possibility that when he enters a room someone might be throwing bullets at him instead of textbooks. The chance that psycopaths might get bullets thrown back at them massively reduces the odds of them attempting a mass shooting attack.

Uhhhmmm, well, not neccessarily. The above seems to rest on the assumption of rational thought processes. Rational thought processes are not usually the hallmark of psychopaths who go on mass murder sprees.

Gun free zones do not keep the guns out of psychopaths hands.

It is true that gun-free zones do not prevent psychotic shooting sprees. Neither do they cause them; IMHO, their effectiveness (or lack therof) is not terribly related to the issue of CCA permits. Hell, if you're properly carrying a concealed weapon, nobody should know if you're violating a gun-free zone until you're actively involved (on one side or the other) of such a shooting spree...

3. All that is needed to reduce mass shooting events is for the psychotic shooter to face the possibility that when he enters a room someone might be throwing bullets at him instead of textbooks. The chance that psycopaths might get bullets thrown back at them massively reduces the odds of them attempting a mass shooting attack.

OK, a problem here... you explicitly describe your subject as a 'psychotic shooter' and then expect him to follow logical train of thought that he might get killed by one of his potential victims. I'm not discarding the point of your argument, but this is rotten support for it because 'psychotic shooters' are, by definition, not that good at such thinking. Either their insanity overrides their self-preservation (in which case the risk of their own death from a heat-packing victim is no deterrent to them) or they're just trying to kill as many people as they can before the get taken out by the cops (and once they've resigned themselves to suicide-by-cop, again, deterrence is no longer an issue).

While more concealed weapons might limit the number of victims, they will not decrease the number of incidents, since death is not a deterrent to this type of nut. The psychotic shooter will always get off the first shots...

But this idea that we need to arm everyone in case some mad man goes on the rampage is nutty.

You are the only person I see advocating it. So if it is a nutty idea it is yours and you own it.

You can rant and rave right past the facts on the ground all you want but that does not change the facts.

1. Mass killings with guns happen for the most part in gun free zones. Gun free zones do not keep the guns out of psychopaths hands.

2. There has never been an increase in gun violence caused by concealed carry permit holders in the states that have passed will issue right to carry laws.

3. All that is needed to reduce mass shooting events is for the psychotic shooter to face the possibility that when he enters a room someone might be throwing bullets at him instead of textbooks. The chance that psycopaths might get bullets thrown back at them massively reduces the odds of them attempting a mass shooting attack.

Cheers,

TJIT

And you miss the fact that the % chance anyone will ever have to face a crazed killer on the rampage is like winning a the lottery 10 time in a row, it's just not on the radar of things people prepare for in their day to day life unless they are creepy insane.

You also miss the fact that concealed carry gives psychopaths the same rights as anyone else to embark on a killing spree in the first place. You also miss the fact that there will never be a critical mass of people who will train themselves to respond to such an attack or walk around packed 24/7 to thwart an incident that is so statistically remote. The best you will end up with is more and more people, unprepared and untrained to deal with such a threat but armed none the less.

In order to get a critical mass of people to carry 24/7 the requirements will have to be relaxed to the point were even the perpetrators will get to carry as well as the law abider's. There tare too many people with delusions of adequacy, shooting a pistol and hitting your target is hard and becoming proficient requires training and practice.

You simply cannot come up with a solution to prevent some tragedies, nor can you even mitigate it because every situation is different but I can tell you what the solution is not ... to loosen restrictions on concealed carry. Look you want to pack 24/7, in most states you can, fill out the form, pass the requirements so you can feel safe. But this idea that we need to arm everyone in case some mad man goes on the rampage is nutty.

You.

That the government usurps that responsibility, not withstanding. And that the government does such a poor job of it, I draw as proof.

IN that sense, Boortz is correct.

and my reply

http://thefloridamasochist.blogspot.com/2007/04/knucklehead-of-day-award_24.html

I thought Steyn's attack on the male students manhood was just sick.

Boortz and Steyn are welcome to their opinions and can state them. I can also say what they say is outrageous. Free speech goes both ways, doesn't it?

You miss the fact that these mass killings generally happen in only one place, gun free zones.

And you miss earlier episodes where mass killings at schools were stopped by armed civilians, not uniformed police officers.

Psycopaths and insane individuals are a fact of life. They are randomly distributed and the time and location where they decide to embark on a killing spree can't be predicted.

Concealed carry gives citizens the ability to stop psycopaths and the insane when they embark on a killing spree. Concealed carry is a prudent policy and the only effective way to reduce the risk of these attacks.

But I find firing people who are hired as controversial commentators for making controversial comments troubling.

Troubling? Well, maybe, but only after I pass through asinine, hypocritical, empty-headed...well, you get the idea.