Two Observations on Spree Shootings

I thought these observations were interesting:

1) From CTone:

Of all the mass shootings in recent history that I recall, the Fort Hood shooting is the only one I know of where responding officers were there in time to exchange fire with the workplace violence guy crazed muslim extremist, and that attack was ironically in a place full of Soldiers who are trained to go after scumbags with firearms but were unarmed by shitty base policy.

The Ft. Hood killer managed to kill quite a number of soldiers and civilians, all of whom were unarmed, before the police could stop him. And the first police officer to arrive didn't stop him; she engaged him and he wounded and incapacitated her with gun fire. It was the second officer who encountered the shooter outside that managed to stop him.

2) From John Wiley Spiers:

The first such campus shoot-em up occurred at UT Texas [sic, Austin], when an ex-marine began sniping and killing students from a Tower.  People driving cars and gun clubbers returned fire, laying down suppression on the Marine sharpshooter. 

When the first cop arrived at the scene he asked a man with a rifle who were all these people with guns firing back? 

"Texans."  Came the reply.  Eventually a citizen and a officer worked their way up the tower and executed the Marine.  No swat.  No "perimeter."  Just old fashioned "git 'er done..."

In other words, things would have been much worse had the civilians not been armed.

As it is with lawful civilians, guns in the hands of the police don't ensure a stop to a spree shooter. But as it is with the police, guns in the hands of lawful civilians does make a difference.