But I don't quite understand the push in Arizona or Oklahoma to further liberalize gun laws. As Yglesias notes here, one State Rep believes that everyone should be packing.
“When everyone is carrying a firearm, nobody is going to be a victim,” [Jack] Harper [R-Sunrise] continued. “The socialists of today are only one gun confiscation away from being the communists of tomorrow.”
On one hand, as Yglesias notes, this is part of the problem. One party is suggesting that the other party wants to turn the country into a totalitarian state. That is irresponsible rhetoric and part of our difficulty.
But on the other hand, I wonder how this kind of gun access is supposed to work. If this shooter was unhinged, one thinks that he would not care if the crowd was armed. Is the logic that we would have a free fire zone of everyone in the crowd grabbing their guns and opening fire? Would that produce a better outcome than what happened?
I have wondered that with the school shootings. The gun people seem to envision a movie scenario where one brave hero takes out the gunman with one shot. But with a bunch of people not trained for a combat situation, isn't it more likely we would end up with more friendly fire? More problems, not less?
And again, as a deterrent, it doesn't work against some of these shooters who plan on either killing themselves or being killed in the process.
Or am I missing something?