Originally Posted by manta
There are examples here of the killers give police no chance because they knew they were armed. (open carrying )And were murders not knowing someone was armed saved his life and cost one of the killers theirs. Giving up the advantage of surprise by letting a possible attacker know you are armed doesn't make sense to me.
The component missing from ^^THIS^^ argument is "motive".
People who attack Uniformed Police are not the people who attack civilians. There is a well established track record of mass shooters retreating and taking there own life when faced with armed confrontation.
Given the IRA struggles in the UK over the decades I'm sure uniformed Cops have been assassinated...
This occasionally happens in the US as well but the "motive" factors are either "political" or "vengeance". These guys rarely have a beef with the populace.
Those who do target civilians for maximum body count and notoriety overwhelmingly choose "gun free zones" and almost exclusively seek to contol there own end by committing suicide at the first sign of resistance.
Should one of these guys pick a crowded Wal Mart over a school and happen to notice armed people in the building... I thing the stats would indicate a high probability of them going somewhere else.
More likely... they would charge in gun blazing and not ever recognize armed patrons until they took return fire.
Is there something to be said for "better safe than sorry?" Sure... But the advantage is constantly overstated without the data to support it.