It's an interesting article, because it's written from the perspective of someone who comes from gun ownership in the family and personally, and is rethinking the idea of carrying a gun as a useful means of personal protection or being able to take out a bad guy threatening others. The comment section is (surprisingly) pretty level-headed as well.
(h/t +Les Jenkins)
It’s Really Hard to Be a Good Guy With a Gun
My wife and I got into an argument last night over a dead man. His name was Joseph Robert Wilcox. He was 31 on Sunday, the day he tried to stop cop-killer Jerad Miller in a Las Vegas Walmart and was shot by Miller’s wife Amanda. Wilcox was a good guy with a gun. It cost him his life.
At one mass shooting (the one in which Gabrielle Giffords was seriously wounded), at least one person with concealed carry didn't draw his weapon precisely because he would only have made himself a target.
It's easy to imagine multiple 2nd Amendment enthusiastic amateurs shooting at each other in a confused situation.
It's been known to happen with cops, along with other friendly fire incidents. Gun accuracy in a stress situation, even at short ranges, tends to be for crap — and those bullets end up going somewhere.
There's a huge difference between training for self-defense (including firearm use) and actually acting effectively for self-defense when a life-threatening situation occurs.
I think a lot of people (self included) fantasize about how we'd react to a deadly event — calm, cool, collected, accurate, heroically. Whereas the surge of adrenaline and other natural reactions is as likely to lead to freeze as fight or flight — and has immediate effects on judgment and fine dexterity.
+Tim Hall Not quite how it went at the GG shooting in Tucson – he wasn't concerned about being targeted, but there was concern he could have shot the wrong person – http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/myth-of-the-hero-gunslinger/
Now, to actually hear Zamudio (http://americanhandgunner.com/the-tucson-atrocity-joe-zamudios-story/) it's a bit more mixed. On the one hand, he was ready to pull if he needed to. He did consider it when he saw one of the people restraining the shooter holding the shooter's gun, thinking he was the shooter — but was able to act in a different method to "disarm" him. So it's less that he almost shot the wrong man, but that he acknowledges he might have (“I was just truly blessed I didn’t have to pull my firearm. I didn’t have to go to that place. The guy who had the gun was the wrong guy, and I’m glad I didn’t pull a gun on him. I’m glad the people took him down when they did."). He actually exercized a great deal of restraint in not approaching the scene with his gun drawn, for which he should be congratulated.
Well, I was close. But both stories illustrate that an armed citizenry isn't much of a defence against mass shootings.
+Tim Hall I can imagine cases where it might be helpful. I can also imagine a lot of cases where it might cause significant harm.