Instead of mall security, how about personal security?

Most of us have heard of the shooter who murdered eight Christmas shoppers and then turned the gun on himself. If at least half of the shoppers in the mall would have carried a firearm, then action could have been taken against the murderer. Most "evil doers" have a preconceived notion that the people they intend to harm are not carrying a gun. They prey opon the weak so that they feel empowered. If a burgular believes a homeowner has a gun to protect his self and property, he won't endanger himself. He'll pick a different house. If the murderer had suspected that the shoppers were carrying guns, he likely wouldn't have done the heinous deed. Instead of requiring tighter security in public places, shouldn't we allow the "good guys" to carry firearms to protect themselves?

Your logic is sound. People have the right to protect themselves. However, I think in order to convince the skeptics, there are issues that you need to address:

1) That an increase in the amount of guns might make people more inclined to vigilante-ism, make them more likely to shoot first before proper justice can be administered. This could be further compounded since the line between good and evil can often become blurry, and someone with convictions might pass judgements that might not represent objective justice.

2) What prevents escalation from occuring? That is, assuming people are carrying guns, so shooters wear bullet proof vests, use automatic machine guns? Furthermore, if there was a fear of retribution, would the shooter not be inclined to use explosives, poison, gas, or other weapons that are indirect and can not be directly fought with guns?

3) Would it not encourage the rise of gangsters and other forms of organized criminal rackets? A lone mugger may be skeptical about assaulting someone who might have a gun, but a group of muggers may be more bold. Wouldn't criminals simply swell the logistics and sophistication of their attacks to minimize their personal danger? Wouldn't society become divided between organized criminals, organized militias, and the rest of the people who do not wish to participate in militia wars?

I am not saying that you are wrong, I am curious as to your response to these skeptic's questions

Two guesses as to what's in my purse - and it ain't lip gloss.

Alright Susie D.....

I too am licensed to carry concealed -- and not afraid to use it.

I can't understand why I can't carry on an airplane????
(I've had a FBI background check and a Top Secret military clearance.)

Do you really think 9-11 would have happen IF the hijackers thought just ONE person on those planes had weapons??

Keep in mind that people who commit these types of acts are not rational and are not deterred by things that would discourage a normal person. The shooter in Omaha was intent on committing sucide and it is unlikely that anything would have deterred him.

I'm all for private citizens carrying guns for self defense but most don't have the level of training required to engage an active shooter of this type. Keep in mind that this guy had a rifle; the average citizen with a handgun would have had a tough time winning a gun battle with him without a great deal of luck. It is a far different thing shooting stationary targets at the range and engaging in a firefight with a person shooting back at you.

I think that having more armed honest citizens would reduce the amount of crime but don't feel that an armed citizen could have necessarily prevented this type of situation.