During the concealed carry class I took several weeks ago the instructor spent a few minutes pointing out something that hadn't occurred to me: the phrase, "a shooting" or "a gunman" is used without much in the way of an explanation as to circumstances when a homeowner or other armed citizen successfully defends himself or herself using a firearm. Especially if it is out in public and the "shooter" is a concealed carry permit holder (that will seldom come out in the news, and I'm not sure why because they do most often identify all involved by name). We just see something like, "the shooter claimed he was being threatened so drew his handgun and fired two shots, killing 30 year-old 'so-and-so'." The news articles pretty much always give the impression that "the shooter" was some wild-eyed, evil nut with a gun, and of course, guns are evil in and of themselves. If the news were more along the lines of how a weapon saved a law abiding citizen who had a permit to carry, would that be so bad? Something else that seems goofy is the growing fad of retail shop owners and other businesses putting up "no guns allowed" signs in their windows and on their entrances, virtually barring law abiding permit holders but giving the green light to crooks who see an easier target knowing that no armed customer in there will have to be dealt with... but that's another subject.