Why someone with a gun could not have stopped the ESB shooting

People are claiming that if citizens were allowed to carry weapons at the site of either the Aurora massacre or the Empire State Building shooting, then the shootings would have been prevented, or at least reduced in severity.

I disagree.

Think about it.  We have two things that can happen:

1) The shootings get prevented,
2) Gun-free zones don't exist, and people are allowed to carry a concealed weapon wherever they choose.

With those two items, there are four possibilities.

1)  The shootings are prevented, and gun-free zones go away;
2)  The shootings are prevented and gun-free zones stay;
3)  The shootings are not prevented and gun-free zones go away;
4)  The shootings are not prevented and gun-free zones stay.

I was talking (well, arguing) in a Facebook thread with a couple of people on the topic of if gun-free zones lead to these kinds of shootings, which a lot of people seem to be claiming in pretty identical language.  (My thought is that the NRA or some other pro-Second Amendment organization put out a talking points memo or something like that.  But that's not really relevant.)  We went back and forth, I was accused of wanting to ban all guns, being un-American, idiocy, insanity, the usual.  (Nevermind that I had started the whole thing by asking for some clarification on the original posting, I wanted to make sure that the person was saying what I thought they were.)  Banning all guns?  No, the Second Amendment exists.  Un-American? Asking a question is un-American?  Idiocy, insanity.. well, that's a matter of opinion.  At one point in the discussion I suggested that we should try to find a solution that keeps that man from taking that action with that gun at that time and place (essentially, preventing the whole thing from happening), while still protecting the Second Amendment rights of ordinary citizens.  I also said that that was going to be a difficult thing to do.  I'll talk about why I think that, later.

I got a response to that comment that basically said that I was naive and didn't know what I was talking about (and he may have been right regarding the other topics being discussed), and that what I suggested, that we find a solution where everyone wins, was impossible.

Impossible.

Really now.

So, let's look at the possibilities again.  #1 is impossible, according to this man's assertion, so that's out.  #4 is depressing, where these shootings continue AND people lose the rights they have under the Second Amendment.  So that leaves #2 or #3.

Let's look at each of those.

#2 keeps the shootings from happening, but it strips people of their right to carry a gun.
#3 lets the shootings continue, but people get to keep that right.

Essentially, it is one or the other, since we can't have both.  Let's look at the implications of this.

Stopping the shootings requires that people lose their right to carry a gun (gun-free zones are upheld).
Ensuring people's right to carry a gun results in these (fatal) shootings continuing.

What it boils down to is this: If we want these shootings to stop, people have to lose (at least part of) their right to carry a gun.

Nobody wants that, really.  *I* don't really want that.  But, if we have to choose one or the other, protecting the Second Amendment rights... leads to more (fatal) shootings.

So in order for people's Second Amendment rights to be protected... People have to die.

I'll say it again:  People have to die to protect the citizens' Second Amendment rights to carry a gun, by this logic.

Wow.  Essentially what this says is that people's lives are less important than other people's Second Amendment rights.

Now, as far as I can tell, the Constitution is silent on people's right to live.  I invite the reader to educate me if this is not true; I am not a Constitutional scholar.  However, the Declaration of Independence establishes the right to life as 'inalienable', which to my mind, supersedes any other right that one may wish to assert, provided by the Constitution or not.  In other words, these people are deprived of their lives with no input as to whether they wish to die in defense of the Constitution or not.  I'm sure it's a comfort to their families that they died so that others may carry guns.

You could argue that it's impossible to prevent these kinds of shootings from happening; there are just too many opportunities for someone to go on a rampage in a public place, if we don't want to live in a police state.  So, that leaves two options, in this case #3 and #4.  #3 protects the Second Amendment, while #4 does not.  Either way, the shootings continue.  This means that it does not matter whether people can carry guns or not; the shootings will continue to happen.  So that blows a big hole in the argument that someone armed in the theater at Aurora or near the Empire State building could have stopped the gunmen in each of those cases.  If you can't stop them, if they're going to happen anyway, then it doesn't matter who else has a gun or not.

You could argue that the Second Amendment must be defended at all costs; it is vital that the right to bear Arms be protected if the country is to survive.  OK, sure.  That leaves us options #1 and #3.  #1 is impossible, as stated above, so that leaves us #3, where the shootings continue, and people continue to die.  So, effectively, people die to protect others' right to carry a gun.  The big problem there is this:  Nobody asked them if they'd mind dying real quick so that that guy over there can carry his Glock.  That'd be great, mmkay?  I'm pretty sure that the response would be "No" followed by either running like hell or punching the person asking in the teeth.

It's one or the other.  Either the shootings stop, or the Second Amendment is defended (to the extent that the absolutists would have it apply).

Or, we take the hard route.  We start from the premise that there is a solution that can accomplish both:  Stopping these mass shootings while still allowing people to enjoy the right guaranteed them by the Second Amendment.  And that's really hard to do.  It requires that the culture change significantly.  I don't know if it's even possible, to be frank.

Let me reiterate:  I am not for banning all guns.  I am not going to come to your house and take your gun away, or try to tell you where and when you can carry it.  I will argue, however, that I don't really accept the theory that adding more guns to an already deadly situation would improve said situation; it strikes me as similar to trying to put a fire out by dumping gasoline on it.

But something needs to change.  Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't make it a good idea.