An armed society...

I agree with this. It might not deter those who don't care if they live or die, but it'll deter everyone else. It's a shame the gov't is trying to erase the 2nd ammendment. "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason

Amen Brother. If you ever see me out and stuff starts, get beside me or behind me. If I don't make it pick up my 9 and finish it up. PS. Yes they are registered and I am licensed.

What about Japan?Or England?Or Sweden? They're all polite societies. That's the problem with quoting a dead sci-fi writer who had a brain tumor,it sounds good,until you actually think about it.

I have a permit, I have licensed firearms, but if I carry at work I get fired because its a gun free zone. never mind the psycho homeless guy who runs around in the traffic screaming that he'll kill people unless someone gives him money. or that I have to walk through one of the highest crime areas of the city just to get to my car (in the only place we can park).

I agree and disagree with this. While an armed society is great and would provide people with a means of defending themselves, most of the shooting in question are in places you would not ever expect a gun. A hospital, are doctors supposed to carry? Nurses? Do they keep guns in a lock box just in case? Schools. Do teachers carry? Principles? Again is there a lock box for emergencies? THE MOST ACTIVE ARMY BASE IN THE US. Do recruits carry? Should NCO's and Officers always have a side arm? I know that when I was in the service even if we had a weapon it usually didn't have live rounds. So the question isn't a gun free zone issue, it is a situation of people not carring about life. The point that is made about a determined killer being almost unstoppable is correct. If somebody wants to kill someone, an armed society will not prevent this. Lets face it a gun is only made for one reason, to shoot something. It isn't an effective deterent when faced with a person who cares nothing for their own life and is going to do whatever it takes to kill another person. How many armed police have been killed in the line of duty without ever unholstering their gun? How many homeowners have been killed even though they owned a gun? We have police, they get to a scene within minutes and usually kill those involved stopping the killing spree, but you cannot prevent those first few seconds when all hell beaks loose. If people at any of these locations had a gun, they would also have eneded it within minutes, just as the police did, but not before damage was done. That is the problem. As a gun owner you think of it as a defensive option and a reactive choice. You cannot be proactive since you have no idea that something will go down until the first person is dead. So this argument is flawed. It assumes that people would be less inclined to kill if a society was armed. The truth is they expect to die and have no regard for their own life or those of others. The locations listed are all places that I would not expect guns to be present ( Army base is an exception but even there the rules about carrying are restrictive )and even if they were the loss of life would still be horrific. To live in constant fear of being a victim is a horrible way to live. To think that you must carry at all times, is a horrible way to live. So you decide when it is appropriate to carry and trust that those who are responsible for protecting you will when outside of your home. I think police to a very good job considering the % of mass killing like this are few and as stated, you cannot prevent it from happening armed or not.