This is why we are hear today arguing about intent.  Case in point.  I could take my Assault Rifle and walk right downtown where I live with it in my hand prepared to shoot.  Someone else can have their gun out at the same time and walk towards me.  In that instance, I can believe that I am in danger and shoot that person and claim self defense even though I do not know the intent of that person.  Right to carry laws put strict measures on individuals and the use of deadly force.  Some one throwing stuff at you probably doesn't merit killing them.  Someone shooting at you or coming at you with a deadly weapon does.  The first person who he shot did not have a deadly weapon or any weapon at all.  This right here will be the big problem since he used deadly force.  The law is pretty clear when you can use deadly force and after killing the first person, self defense goes out the window.  Even then, we do not know what provoked the people chasing him. This will be crucial because if he instigated the issue, this will also nullify self defense.  Living in a open carry state, crap like this F things up for all of us.  Just because you have a right to carry a gun means you really have to be responsible when you decide to use it.  This is why you do not let minor carry without adult supervision and you definitely do not let them believe they are Rambo in a situation with no gain.

We have three options, that I can see. If there is a fourth or more let me know.

1) Current situation, with occasional rambos as you pointed out, but the vast, vast, vast majority of gun users being safe and responsible.

2) Everyone has a gun that they are legally required to carry at all times. There could be more Rambos, but I suspect there will be less, because most people that shoot people do so under the impression that they can't shoot back. This basically would weed out all shootings except for the situations where people have gone over the edge of mental stability and don't care about getting killed themselves. Even in those situations, there is a much greater chance some not-crazy person will shoot that person before the crazy one can mow down a bunch of people. 

3) No one has a gun. While this seems safer, what's to hold back the government going all King George III on us and stripping us of our rights? And now suddenly we don't have the largest armed citizenry on the planet, which is the single biggest deterrent to someone invading us. I suspect Japan would have done more than just sink our Navy, possibly a land invasion, if they didn't fear the red necks of America. I suspect the Russians would have handled the Cold War differently as well. I suspect China would be handling the trade war differently as well. I believe I read somewhere that 40% of the guns on the planet are owned by American citizens. No one is going to invade this country and take it. Only way they are getting rid of us is by nukes, and even then we've got a ton of room to spread out and defend our land when the invasion force comes with our guns. Take the guns away? History would be different and our current situation would be more dire. 

That's a pretty bold claim that several invasions have been avoided because of the fear of rednecks. What do you have to make that claim? 

From what I can find experts disagree on Japan at least. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jan/14/facebook-posts/after-pearl-harbor-japanese-didnt-invade-us-becaus/

I think you vastly underestimating how many spur of the moment shooting there would be if everyone has a gun.  You can already find many many stories of someone catching there husband or wife cheating on them and then in that moment of anger shooting them.  I think the number of those kind of to angry to think straight in the moment shootings would increase by a lot if everyone had a gun on them at that moment of anger. 

Also mass shooting happening very quickly most the time it over before anyone could react to the shock to shoot back.  That not even considering the risk of cross fire if 100's people are drawing a gun in a crowded room to reaction of hearing gun fire.  You could see more people dieing of friendly fire then killed by the actual shooter.

If you going to require everyone to have a gun there must also be some kind of training also.  How you going to enforce that, how often you going to make them take the training.  what fines you going to give out to those who refuse to carry a gun.  you going to make exception for religious reasons etc?

Then there all the data that shows simply having a gun inside a home greatly increase the chance someone in that house getting shot etc.

Sound like a complete disaster to me trying to make people carry a gun who don't want one.

Bruh you're talking to a self-proclaimed anti-racist who supports the blatantly racist affirmative action, you can't expect consistency! I suspect he's the Malcom X type, as in he doesn't denounce the concept of racism as a whole, only when it's used against his preferred race. He has no problem with discrimination towards his unpreferred group a.k.a. straight white males, hence his obsession with blaming them for everything. It's pretty sad but also funny, I think even a child could rationalize how stupid it is to combat racism with racism. 

Did you honestly just pull the 'you hate me because I'm white' argument? I'm white and like 99% of my friends are white. You're just a troll clearly trying to bait me. I've seen the arguments you make, I've interacted with you plenty enough to know that you're the worst kind of person to get into a debate with because you twist everything to suit your narrative, take no responsibility for your words, and cry foul any time anyone tries to call you on your shit. I won't seriously engage with you because you're just a troll or a fool. I'm not interested in getting caught up in your frankly ignorant beliefs and hilariously skewed perspective. 

Your hypocrisy is absolutely mindblowing; it'd take me the length of a novel to find examples and respond to them each individually. Nobody has time for that. you're not worth my time. 

"There are few people in this world more dangerous than those in power who believe they are oppressed." Too true. Because when you're in power and have the ability to control the narrative, it's even easier to blame those not in power and get people on your side.

That is exactly what we're seeing here with "All Lives Matter" And a handful of people on this forum. People will all the privilege in the world acting like having to share some of it is the same as oppression. Dumbasses who have never been persecuted a day in their life crying foul because underrepresented groups are demanding representation. IT's not self-hatred to say 'yeah, maybe whites are overrepresented' or 'maybe we shouldn't have all the power'. Anyone who believes it is just wants to protect the status quo because change is not in their favour, even if it is fair.

Seriously. Change needs to happen in this world. Will we find a perfect solution immediately? Hell naw. Adjustments need to be made in order to find that proper balance, and finding said balance will take work and time. Is there a chance that we'll offset the balance in the opposite direction prior to finding harmony? Almost certainly. I just wish more people had the perspective needed to understand that we are still in the process of finding equality and that it will be rough. Anyone bitching and moaning like a scorned child because the changes happening right now are in someone else's favour should really read a history book, or a psychology book, or a sociology book, or an ecological book, or an accounting book, or some books about the economy.

It's easy to pretend that everything is fine the way it is when you've never experienced persecution or have miraculously found a way out of poverty against all odds. It's easy to say 'I did it, so anyone can' despite that clearly, functionally, provably not being the case. It takes work to make things right, those fighting change - even change that isn't perfect but is in quest for trule equality - are lazy and selfish. They don't want equality, they are greedy.

As a white person I say this: We're lucky those who have been oppressed only want equality, not revenge. Unfortunately, some people out there feel these two things are the same. They are not, and it makes me so infuriated that I feel the need to point this out what seems like once a week to so many people.

"When you're used to privilege, equality feels like persecution."

"Adjustments need to be made in order to find that proper balance"

>What does a proper balance look like?

I can't speak for what other countries do or what their people feel.

And yes, yes I do:

1) Ocean distance is a joke in importance now days. Maybe to a country like Iran or North Korea, but their militaries are a joke as well and aren't really a threat even regionally over there. But China? The ocean isn't going to prevent them from invading America if all they have to do is defeat our military.

2) The size of our country? Not sure if you mean geographically or population, so I'll respond to both. Geographically the size and quality of our land would be extremely appealing to any nation wanting wealth, natural resources, and space to expand their own crammed populations. If you mean population wise, we only have 330 million people, and a HUGE portion of them live in major cities that would probably be completely wiped out in the event of nuclear war (which would pre-date the land invasion). But those city folks aren't the ones the Chinese would have to worry about, as they aren't the ones carrying the guns or planting mines in on their property.

3) The economic loss of trade would be greatly offset by the appeal of capturing our land and resources. Why trade with America, when you can conquer and tax America?

4) Our military and nuclear arsenal would be insane to get through, for sure, but we are also stretched out all over the globe. Countries complain when we have troops in their borders and then complain when we leave, so we are kind of stuck being a scattered military. If our entire military was stateside it would be different, but the local militias that would rise in America because of a land invasion from someone like China would make our military look like a joke, and our military makes every other military look like a joke already so that's saying something. As this shows, even China's military has a lot of work to take on the US military:

https://www.ibtimes.com/us-vs-china-military-strength-comparing-defense-capabilities-2789735

Again, I think that the American people are the biggest defense to America. You are more than welcome to disagree. I don't have any contemporary evidence for this, more of a gut feeling as well as a study of the American Revolution and seeing what happened with my fellow Americans during 9/11. We really do unite like nothing else when an enemy attacks us, and those are usually just singular events, so if some massive nation invaded us by deploying troops I can only imagine the level of fervent patriotism spreading like wildfire across the countryside.