Well, I also honor this man for his heroic actions, and thank you for quoting me because I wasn't talking about this man specifically. As my quote says, I was talking about "a soldier going into war".

This case has been posted here for us to learn something about survival, not merely for us to admire this man's heroism. If someone knows they are going into a war and they must fight, then that person is essential a soldier at that point. If that soldier knowingly goes into war equipped with a butter knife to face attackers, when there are other gear options available, then that soldier is basically committing suicide. It's fair to assume this man didn't know he would have to fight in a war that day. However, if he did know beforehand, then...

Well, I admit I used to think like that. However, after some thought and age, I now realize that mindset doesn't make sense at all. If there is any place a self-defense weapon should be carried, ironically, it's in a place where a whole bunch of people are known to be without weapons. For every mass shooting and for every killer that preys on unequipped victims, this concept is readily apparent.

The nutballs out for a body count seem to concentrate more on heavily crowded venues. Whether the crowd has been disarmed on not doesn't seem to factor in. Just looking at the most recent incidents (Oak Creek Sikh temple, Aurora theater, Oakland Oikos university, and the Seal beach hair salon), most don't appear to be in traditional knife free zones.

http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/

EDIT: I'm not advocating that carrying a knife is useless. A knife's day to day usefullness merits carrying one. I'm just arguing against the "unequipped victims" = likely target premise.

You can draw your own conclusions, but the vast majority of mass shootings in America's recent history (last 50 years) have been in "gun-free zones" or "weapon-free zones". The stats aren't even close to being the other way around.

I believe the empirical evidence is overwhelming that these cowards prefer to attack unarmed people where they gather; schools, churches, sporting events, restaurants, and shopping centers.

The presence of one or two trained concealed carry citizens would have reduced the carnage in most cases. This has been shown to be true many times with nothing but speculation to argue against it.

Removal of the 'guns banned here' signs probably would have totally prevented the incident in that specific venue.

I'm not a fan of the added sound or graphics on this video, but the content is good.
The suspects were both wounded and were arrested shortly after the incident.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epZod2qyyN4

Agree with Above post,me thinks a ruger 22 pistol may have stopped the guy.

For the record, I'm in favor of CCW for properly trained/prepared citizens, and I'm opposed to "no carry" zones for same. I won't argue against the position that a lawfully armed citizen might have made a big difference in several of the recent tragedies. I also, professionally, try to stay current on our scientific understanding (or lack thereof) of violence risk factors and perpetrators. That being said:

"the vast majority of mass shootings in America's recent history (last 50 years) have been in "gun-free zones" or "weapon-free zones". The stats aren't even close to being the other way around."
I'd appreciate being directed to any credible studies which address that conclusion. Not necessarily doubting the comment...just would like to have the actual data.

"I believe the empirical evidence is overwhelming that these cowards prefer to attack unarmed people where they gather..."
Is there any data regarding what "these cowards" think, or prefer? The FBI, DOJ, and Secret Service Behavioral Sciences units have the most data... and I can't find anything which says this about the perpetrators' thinking processes or motivations.

"Removal of the 'guns banned here' signs probably would have totally prevented the incident in that specific venue. "
Is that so? If the killers have such aberrent thinking as they appear to have, could taking down signs have "totally prevented" the incidents? I know a lot about psychosis and delusional ideation (NO..not from my personal experience with the voices in my head, folks...) and it isn't that simple.

Many (hopefully all) of the opinions expressed in this thread come from (hopefully) sane, reasonable members here. So they sound like just good sense to me. The problem is we non-crazy minds are trying to understand the thoughts and motives of some pretty crazy killers: we have little hard data to help us do that, at this point. The assessment or prediction of threatening behavior and who will become violent toward others is imprecise and subject to significant error. At this point in the scientific understanding of these issues we are guessing, and there is currently no unchallenged data regarding the factors which increase vs decrease risk. I'd like to take some comfort in the assumptions that allowing CCW and elimination of no-gun signs would dissuade deranged killers, but I can't. Perhaps armed citizens could quickly kill the killers once they got started on their spree - but would we prevent them from getting started?

When I made my post you quoted I was going to list all of the mass shootings (three or more people) in the last several decades in America. However, they are quite numerous, and I was not motivated enough to organize the data and provide the list. I can offer you my word that the vast majority of the shootings were in gun free zones. Specifically, most were schools. There were also places like the Amish school shooting in 2006, where guns may not have been technically banned (I don't know), but where the gunman did not face armed opposition due to the particular community's culture of being weaponless.

I am still unmotivated to organize the data and provide the list here. If somebody else wants to take the ball and run with it, then I'm sure some people will appreciate the effort.

Important point, we may not need to know the actual mindsets of the madmen. We can make educated guesses from the stats. It's common practice to analyze historical data to predict the future. For example, if you were to guess the more likely place a mad gunman would strike of the following two locations, where would you guess: (1) a crowded high school auditorium in Colorado or (2) a crowded police station in Colorado? What would be your reasoning for making your guess?

No one here is trying to predict the exact actions of a madman, nor do I see any claims that there is a way to consistantly prevent their actions. There are just a few common sense traits that are present in human beings, one of them a tendency to go towards the path of least resistance. If you are selecting a target for high body counts you are insane, but not necessarily stupid....lowest on your list will be a gun range, a police picnic, a military live ammo drill. A bit higher might be a bank or a shopping mall (there might be an armed guard or CCP individuals there). Next level might be a school or a theater...but which one? If there was a choice between one that advertises that it allows CCP guns, and one that posts a sign that it bans guns, that target is softer...an easy choice.

No one could prevent the start of carnage, but a couple of CCP in the crowd and well placed shots would end the madmans murderous rampage before he could kill everyone. It may also give publicity-seeking copycats pause.

The Internet is brimming with studies, articles, and anecdotes, as is every back issue of American Rifleman, backing up much of what has been said in this thread. Bringing it all to ETS requires more time than I have right now.

John Lott is a gun expert, I am not. You might begin your research with this article and others by him...

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html/

This is a highly emotional subject, and objective studies are pretty rare (my try for understatement of the year). Can anyone cite some that do not have an axe to grind?

I have heard (and read) diverse opinions about John Lott. Frankly, I'm uncertain....