If you're reading this blog, you're interested enough in politics and news that you know about the wacko who flipped out in Moscow, Idaho, killed his wife, shot up a police station, killed a policeman and wounded a deputy, then ended up in a church where he killed somone else and himself. A tragedy for all involved.
I'm waiting for Cramer or Instapundit or Adam or someone to make the point; "If everyone carried guns, we'd all be safer. He wouldn't have gotten away with it." To which I'd reply, the guy attacked a police station, where everyone is armed and even trained to shoot. If you can shoot up a police station and get away with it (the guy killed himself), what does that say about the effectiveness of arming the population?
Please, spare us the specious, self-serving, speculative argument. Concluding that an armed population would put an end to such idiocy is as fallacious as concluding that successfully attacking a police station means that arming the population would have no effect. Both fail for lack of facts, causal link and general common sense.
Update: Here's a link to a story about the U of I student who grabbed a gun and ran to try to help, only to get severely shot up himself. He's described as an avid hunter. The first bullet went through his back, diaphragm, liver and lung. He said that when struck he first thought, "Now I know what a deer feels like." Not a good argument for arming the populace.