I wonder if there would be a way to study the effect on mass shootings by, instead of banning all guns to requiring everyone concealed carry?
In my mind, that would be one of the few solutions that could actually work. How may "mass" shootings could occur if EVERY target could defend itself with equal deadly force?
Even if people chose not to carry, the suspect wouldn't know that. He would have to go on the assumption that everyone could intervene.
Any thoughts?
Here lies the issue with Boulder. They allow CCW for their residents. Any gun free zone sign does not have the weight of the law behind it. So you can still CCW inside the market or property and no one will know.
At this day and age, why no one was carrying when this happened, is really on them. Unless they are disqualified from owning a gun. If they don't believe in guns, then they can wait till the PD arrive and face any consequences of that decision.
I posted earlier, but BJ Baldwin didn't carry everywhere until he got in a situation that he could have needed his gun. He thought he was just going to get milk, so no need. Since that event, he carried everywhere. Fast forward to his use of CCWing for self defense. There may have been a chance he would be unarmed had that previous event not taken place. His gf topgun tori was unarmed. He recently posted on his IG story the importance of carrying everywhere, even if you're going down the road to buy a bottle of soda.
Now there are some places where people aren't allowed. Like the Florida MSD shooting, staff not allowed to carry per federal law, unless they get the approval from the principal or like authority figure (gun free school zone law). Or the Vegas shooting, the shooters were hundreds of yards away and to engage would not be wise with a pistol. But in a Walmart like in the TX shooting or the Boulder market, CCW should be participated in.