Quote: No, because mass shooters WANT to kill or hurt their victims. Armed victims would pose a challenge because they might shoot back. It's not a secret that criminals are less likely to rob houses if they know that the occupants have a gun.
Mass shooters either have some connection to the place they choose, or choose a place to make a statement. Having armed resistance isn't going to stop school shooting since most school shooters are either current or former students. All it's going to do is make them realize they have to take out the people with guns first. Or it's going to change their method of causing chaos.
I feel like there's really a difference in philosophy on these mass shootings. You have one side that wants to prevent them from happening while the other side wants to stop them in progress. Which makes more sense?
There are always going to be mass shootings (And killings.) no matter how tight the laws are. We can take precautions to somewhat lessen them, but they're still going to happen. Mass shooters almost always target places without guns, if there is armed resistance they would be LESS likely to target those places. It's why a lot of them tend to commit suicide AFTER the cops (Armed resistance,) catch up to them.