To attempt t parse through the debate.
IF a gun in your pocket gives you even a 1 in 100 chance of survival in that instance, how could you possibly NOT want it? in a hindsight situation?
If one of the spectators had a gun, and that increased your chances of survival by even as little as 1 in 5, how could you NOT want that chance?
Now, Jab can make a strong argument that a firearm being in the area could have led to additional casualties from missed shots, or even on trget shots that pass trhough the intended target, and I won't dispute that. A responsibile gun owner knows not to shoot if his sight picture isn't entirely clean, meaning even an on target shot that has the potential to pass through your intended target and do damage should be avoided, so RESPONSIBLE, TRAINED firearm usage drops that chance to near zero.
Te anti-gun crowd to me always thinks in absolutes, in a utopian way. Idon't think the understadn that banning guns takes ZERO awy from the criminals. With how many frearms exist in this country, it hardly even dents the future availability of FUTURE criminals getting them, even if they are currently unborn. For some reason, that point jsut does nto appear to sink in. It's better to think of it in a way to assume that all criminlas, now or in the future will have access to firearms for the forseeable future(potentially 100 years or more) even if firearms and ammunition became immediately and completely illegal. Think of it in those terms and tell me you want to deny responsible adult citizens to own a firearm for the purpose of protecting themselves.
If the firearm were to be invented TOMORROW, I would agree that citizns should not be able to own them. Instead, they were invented several hundredyears ago and you can't pu the crap back in the cow, so IMO, it's better to put law abiding citizens on equal footing with those which intend to harm them.