Another Shooting, Another Gun Free Zone

[sc94597]

Conina said:

sc94597 said:

Conina said:

sc94597 said:

"Why would they need to carry guns?" To prevent one guy from killing 69 people. Such a thing would not happen in the U.S in any place where guns are legal and freely available to both individuals and the police. The largest mass-shooting in the U.S was Virginia Tech (likely a gun-free zone) and 32 people died there.

So the brave American civilians with their guns saved the day in these mass shootings and prevented further killings by incapacitating the perpetrator(s)?

Or did the police force had to do it?

Both.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-that-were-stopped-by-someone-wit#.bdNX8jQD8

Just read the comments of your own URL... most of these 9 cases spanning 15 years (didn't they find a tenth case to present a sweet top ten?) were police officers and the rest are perhaps palliated. There is another article in the comments: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings

And? Said police officers wouldn't be able to carry weapons when they are off-duty with the idealized laws. And I am sure there were other cases, but certainly not enough national media coverage was present to verify and source them (which any journalist must do.) Then you link motherjones, who obviously has an agenda against guns. I won't take them seriously on the matter. Buzzfeed is liberal enough already.