One simple reason why more guns is not a good answer...

We've seen this tragedy unfold so many times in the last decade... Someone is armed and walks into a crowded school, or store, or theater and opens fire.

It's becoming so disheartening to see both the unyielding fantasy of gun owners and the complete cowardice of lawmakers to stand up for more sensible gun laws. Couple that with the sensationalism that feeds our pathetic excuse for journalism today and you've got an explosive mixture of emotion and misinformation. The gunman is unwittingly glorified and the nation is once again wringing its hands.

One of the arguments you often hear following a mass shooting is that if there were more armed people about, the gunman would be stopped before more victims die. There is some logic to this, but you also have to have an enormous amount of faith in the magic ability of good guys to be where we need them at all times. That's not reality and everyone knows it.  It might be slightly logical, but it's a dangerous fantasy.

First off, the gunman often carries an advantage in situations like this: He is more often than not, heavily armed. That means that he may have the means to inflict more damage because he has more ammunition at the ready on his person. Secondly, the gunman might be wearing body armor. If someone is intent upon killing as many people as possible, he's going to wear some form of protection. The "good guy" who carries a concealed weapon for the purpose of protection is not going to necessarily take down an armored attacker with any great ease - especially if that attacker is firing back.

The other logical argument against this notion of "more guns in a situation saves lives", is the dilemma of determining: who is the gunman, and who is a responder? Let's look at this more closely. 

Suppose I have a gun and learn that someone on my school campus has opened fire on people. I may decide to go into the danger zone with the intent of stopping this gunman. As I get closer to the scene, I may withdraw my weapon to have it at the ready. Let's say someone else with the same intention is armed and heading to the scene from a different vector. If we suddenly find ourselves in a live gunfight situation with another armed person, how does he know I'm not the gunman or vice-versa?
Unless we've had combat or police training, we're going to be adding more confusion to an already tense and surreal situation.

Suppose a SWAT team has arrived on the scene within minutes (as they were in Roseburg) and I have my weapon drawn. How do they know I'm not THE gunman? They don't. I'm at risk of being another casualty due to confusion and the desire of police to stop an armed person with deadly force. 

This notion of more guns is probably born of the revenge motivation in Hollywood action films. It's a cool idea, but outside of Hollywood, it's also a very unrealistic one. More guns always means more potential for gunshots and casualties.