luzyfuerza
Member
The only logical conclusion is that people tend to not carry, even when they can and/or they tend to not respond to mass shooters even if they are carrying.
The only logical conclusions? Not so fast, please. Your implied definition of "respond" seems to be a bit different than mine.
I carry pretty much any time I'm away from home.
But, my personal rules of engagement are that I will not engage an attacker with deadly force unless 1) I am personally, directly threatened with deadly force, or 2) any of my loved ones is directly threatened with deadly force. I have chosen not to risk my own life to defend strangers against a deadly attack. There are a couple of exceptions to these rules that I won't discuss here.
My "response" to an armed murderer is to avoid him if I can. My first "response" is to escape to safety if a perfectly safe path can be identified. If we can't escape via a route that is known to be perfectly safe, then my next "response" will be to find a place where we can hole up and, if possible, set a counter ambush.
If the El Paso WalMart murderer was shooting up grocery and we could safely escape through tire and auto on the other side of the store, then we're heading out. I'm not sticking around to "respond to [a] mass shooter even if [I am] carrying".
This approach has the triple benefits of reducing the risk of dying at the hands of the mass murderer, reducing the risk of dying at the hands of responding police, and reducing the risk of liability imposed by the legal system.
Only if I can't avoid him will I "respond" (using what I think is your definition of the word). I pray that never happens.