Pro-gun people joke and say “ban theaters” which is stupid because it’s an environment. Pro-gun people say “theater was gun-free zone” that apparently wasn’t enforced. Pro-gun people say “more guns = less shootings” and that’s how war works (Should work? Whatever.). // The threshold is on the equality of opportunity for the equal and opposite reaction. In cases like this, it is the offense and defense mindset. A person should have the right to defend themselves against an unjust act of violence against them. The question is then: is giving what could be a victim the equal opportunity to shoot back negate the chance that someone could die as efficiently as a gunshot can make it? // It’s like if someone is trying to drive somewhere and they are set on driving there because it’s efficient but they didn’t have there own car… if more people had cars, would that negate the chance that the person would get there in a car or negate them finding a way by any means necessary to acquire a car and do their intended drive? If more people had cars, does that mean more people would want to use their own car as to beat this one person to get there? The actual shooting incident would be if the person got “there”. What if there were no cars? I mean, let’s use a rational statement to portray logic: “If A is a gun and/or the amount of bullets in the gun, and 1 represents the person wanting a gun for killing people, and Z is the amount of deaths. What would A have to be for there to be no deaths? A x 1 = Z // If banning guns is not the solution, which I can understand is too ideal and law-imposing for some, then enforcing the Gun-Free zone the theater allegedly was is at least this problem. Responsibility in enforcing an implemented law. Okay, but does a sub-zone and/or sub-law enforcement still negate the chances of a gun getting used in such a way in an open-carry state? // On one side of the debate are the people that believe everybody else should have guns to negate that one person has a gun for the wrong reasons. On the other side of the debate are the people who think if it’s going to get to that point, then get rid of guns and similar projectile firing objects that can be used as weapons altogether as to decrease the efficiency in killing anybody… which means, yes, that still allows things to be weapons but much more effort would be needed for an attacker to be right next to the person to do so. Everybody can hold a knife, but would they have the means to kill 10+ people with that? Would they even have the accuracy and force to even kill one person? There is the exception of blind-siding one person but that is the almost guaranteed chance of any move in life… but that is a far cry from the efficiency of 10+ people and not being in direct contact nor even really close to the victims.