Not everyone in this thread has acknowledged it, though... because there have been several examples (including the thread title itself) that seem to advocate the position that if more people had guns at a given shooting, then less lives would have been lost... then they extrapolate that to a need to have less gun control. I was just pointing out that even if we had zero gun control laws, there would still be places where guns weren't allowed by the owners of that property... and shootings might take place there... so the ultimate conclusion has to be that gun control OR lack of gun control really doesn't matter in the scheme of things in terms of stopping the criminal. Laws only affect law-abiding citizens... and I just wanted to interject another way of saying that. Some like to say that having a gun = protection... but it doesn't always mean anything. You have to have your gun, know how to use it, and have it at the ready and be able to shoot before you get shot first likely by the surprise criminal... and that's a lot of "what ifs" to have to connect before automatically equating having a gun to being safer. Add to that... the criminal doesn't know if you have a gun or not... and while that might deter some criminals... undoubtedly the crazy ones don't care if they get shot, so they'll come anyway... so there goes the deterrent factor too.