Something that appears to get lost in the discussion on the right about gun control. They would argue that more people with guns can mitigate death tolls in massacre situations.
Except this idea only adds a very fundamental problem: If you see multiple people with a gun, Who do you shoot?
Friendly fire is not some quaint abstract notion. Even trained professionals have a difficult time, in the heat of a gun fight, knowing who the "enemy" is.
I used to work with a marine who was in the first gulf war and he told a story about almost getting attacked by another group of marines who didn't know who they were until it was almost too late (actually those marines did shoot my friend's group and they had to run for cover and radio in to stop it. no one got killed but it could have gone much worse.)
You have plainclothes police officers who run the risk of getting shot by their uniformed bretheren while trying to stop a crime in progress. Store owners who might get shot grabbing a gun and chasing after a thief. This is something that police are extensively trained to avoid and it still happens in the real world. Not to mention that police are trained to be not only good marksmen, but be cognizant of whether their bullets can penetrate one body and strike another. And you want to add a bunch of AMETEURS to the mix?
Seriously? That's not going to decrease the number of innocents killed. It's going to magify it.
It's one thing to say you're going to carry a gun, it's another thing entirely to use it. As soon as you unholster a weapon you run the very REAL risk of becoming a target of someone else who may not know you're not an enemy.
I find it interesting that there's this belief that having guns will protect you from getting shot. I'm surprised more people don't invest in body armor instead of guns.
An armed society is not a polite society. An armed society is a dangerous society.