I’d agree there was a good chance casualties would have been reduced. Rush into a crowded room shooting, and there’s a big difference if the attacker has to worry about getting shot in the back. Not to mention about being perforated while he is changing magazines.
I agree, but it’s really a statistics game. Given any number of armed people, a certain number of them, under fire, will turn out to not have what it takes. One of the advantages to having a society where people can choose to be armed is that it increases the chances that someone with the right mix of traits will rise to the occasion, with the tools at hand to accomplish what needs to be done.
A mistake much of the left makes is assuming those we pay to be professional protectors are any better than the rest of us when real bullets start flying. They are subject to the same psychology as the rest of us, and the same statistical gamble applies — they will just have somewhat better odds, having either thought about life and death situations to begin with, or having a military background, as many in law enforcement do. But there’s plenty of people out there who have the mental and psychological capacity to come out on top in a firefight, even without extensive training. A smart society doesn’t restrict their ability to have vital tools at hand. The more armed people that are about, the greater the likelihood that one of them will have the psychological makeup to prevail. A smart society will want to make the greatest number of sheepdogs, with as few wolves and sheep as possible. There will always be wolves, and there will always be sheep, but as long as there are many sheepdogs, polite society can flourish in safety. Perhaps too much safety.
UPDATE: More here.