"Since their goal is mayhem, and often suicide by cop they are as likely to choose armed citizens to attack as let the presence of other guns deter them. This means that tighter restrictions on firearms, not a more general arming of citizens, would probably reduce the incidence of mass shootings more effectively."
- R. Stanton Scott. - Talking about spree shooters
As usual anti-gunners like Mr. Scott make such statements within their own fantasy world rather than the real world. Mass shootings over the last few decades have predominantly taken place in "gun free zones." They're also still taking place in Europe despite the kind of gun control Paul Helmke would find orgasmic. Stan claims "they are as likely to choose armed citizens to attack" yet he offers no evidence to support such a claim. (surprise, surprise) Mr. Scott is, as Joe Huffman would put it, "incapable of determining truth from falsity.
Not only have such shootings generally occurred in "Gun Free Zones," but armed citizens have a good track record of stopping spree shooters.
One should also note that Stan's 2nd sentence has no logical connection to his 1st. If such shooters are "as likely" to choose armed vicitms as they are to choose unarmed ones, then tighter restrictions on firearms would have no impact on the frequency of such incidences. Furthermore, who such murderers choose to kill (armed or unarmed victims) has no bearing on the frequency of the incidences.
Rational thought has never been a strong suit of the anti-gun mind. I for one am happy that anti-gun bigots demonstrate this for us on a regular basis.