There is never a shortage of news stories about "gunman shoots down such and such number in mall" or resteraunt or school, or whatever. Now a big argument for being able to carry fire arms with you for protection in any public place is "well if a killer shows up a' killin' somebody can stop him". So...eh...where are these heroes stopping the crazed gunmen, The gunslinging member of the NRA that is always packing? If more guns makes us safer, why is it that crazed gunmen only ever seem to get shot by themselves (or occasionally the police)? In the US you can take a gun almost anywhere except government buildings, and yet it still only seems to be the crazy people doing the killin'.
I'm not really pro- or against, haven't made up my mind. But from a strictly empirical standpoint, that seems to be a dumbass argument. A rationalist argument perhaps, but not a particularly emprical one.
You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.
