No, but it prevents you from being a helpless victim. there isn't much you can do to prevent some random crazy (determined) person from attempting to harm you but preventing innocent people from being able to protect themselves ensures they have little to no chance of fighting back. Would allowing the marines in this building have prevented this senseless act of violence? Probably not, but had he chosen to get out of his car and walked insoide yeah they would have had a better chance at fighting back if armed.

That all aside you completely missed the point of the posting. These style of shootings frequently happen in places that are designated "gun-free" thus make attractive targets for murderers who know they can hurt as many people as they wish and there will be no one around to stop them until they have hurt/killed many innocent people.

I think it is you sir, who fails to recognize what is "illogical" here. Either eway you're outta here so I won't expect a reply.

I'll just leave this here

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-believe-tsarnaev-brothers-killed-officer-for-his-gun/

It is funny how these things almost never happens in Europe, which is essentially one big gun free zone

I'm active duty military.

Only thing I'll say is the people who want all active duty on a base to be able to carry is ridiculous and ignorant.

Only specially trained who's jobs require for it should carry.

I don't want Johnny-no-striper who works dental with a history of anxiety or depression to have a gun on my base.

This.

I am not a citizen of the US. We have very diffrent gun laws were I'm from. It's very hard for the average citizen to obtain firearms, especially handguns. You need to have a gun license and be a certified Hunter or being part of a gun club, for sport shooting. There are diffrent permits, the most basic one allows for ownership, but not carriyng or use. Number and kind of weapons that can be obtained are regulated by this permit and have to be registered before being bought. There is a diffrent permit for actually carrying the weapon. This one has to be renewed every three years and a test has to be taken every time. Further, if the applicant is under 25 years old a phych evaluation is mandatory, No firearms are allowed for people under 18 years, and also no firearms for people that either have a diagnosed mental illness or a criminal record. Thats just a little part of our gunlaw and only the part I'm familiar with.

Basically if you live in a city, policemen are the only people with guns around and they usually don't have permit to carry concealed.

The result is that we don't have much gun crime. We still have awful stabbings, beatings and axemurders. The positive is that other weapons are usually more survivable than guns, so you tend to have less casualties overall. Also it's really fucking hard to have a driveby stabbing.

However if you have a gunfree zone without any protection at all in an aeria with laxer gun laws, you're basically just sitting ducks ans need armed guards, even I can see that.

But in the end, the only thing that can really help violent and organized crime is getting people proper education and treating them with dignity.

Yep 10000s of women are being raped everyday in Australia and behedead and killed.

Meanwhile in South Sudan its the garden of eden. 

You hit the spot mate. But isnt better to make guns illegal for personal use.
Like a famous rapper once said "guns dont kill people, people with guns kill people".

And? No one is claiming being armed makes you invincible.The idea is that in the event that someone is trying to do you harm you have a means to protect yourself. Like say in this instance...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/home-girl-12-shoots-intruder-article-1.1188229

or this one... http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/georgia-mom-shoots-home-intruder-face-article-1.1234400

I could take up a whole page with these.

Your tit-for-tat reply does nothing to to further the argument for allowing innocent, law-abiding, free men/women from owning and/or carrying a firearm to protect themselves. We could probably link to many stories where people are killed (and not necessarily by a firearm) for their jewelry, their cell-phone or their sneakers... http://www.myfoxhouston.com/story/24277622/2013/12/20/son-killed-over-air-jordans-now-mother-raising-awareness

The bottom line here is that the arguments against free people excercising their right to keep and bear arms is born out of unrational fear and disdain. And while you certainly cannot prevent all tragedy, you can make sure that innocent people are allowed to defend themselves and others.

Why not just ban guns? The policy is just a joke. It's like covering a wound with bandage without applying any medicine.

The problems with any type of arms is, it makes killing easier and quicker. Even if they had armed guards, unless the armed guards are psychic, they won't know or expect anyone to do anything. The guy will still be able to take shots before he is taken out.

The problem with the world is, it insists on manufacturing things that kill and the more it does this, the more people are are being put into the ground. Arms manufacturers don't believe in patriotism unless it's being patriotic to their back accounts.

The simplest solution would be to disarm everyone and everything and if someone does decide to create anything that kills and then proceed to kill, to ship them off to the north pole.

Think about Srebenica, 1000's of people including infants and babies in a UN protection zone, surrounded by armed UN soldiers to protect them, yet they were all round up and killed.

The point I'm making is, as a species we are destructive by nature. If we want to kill, we will find a way.