LeSellers

Even if statistics did support the claims of anti-gun advocates, the fact remains that the right to bear arms is a constitutional right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

Jojo
Maybe we only disagree on semantics.  Sometimes you have no opportunity to stop to determine if you have neutralized the threat.  So you keep going til you can safely find out.  It could cost a lot to stop and find out the perp is still shooting.
I can give you a link to two videos which you probaby/may have seen.  In both the mag (16 or 17) is emptied.  In one, twice, as the threat is still firing, even with a second leo shooter shooting.  Here was a guy who took maybe 30 rounds before going down still shooting.  All in what, 10 seconds?
The other, his 16 or 17 fly as fast as possible, and he still can't tell a thing about the threat.  He then approaches to see WITHOUT reloading.  One of those heat of the moment mistakes that could have hurt him but didn't.
I'm talking about Middlefield Ohio, and Akron Ohio, bb gun.
dc

It was through Hupp's efforts, and also the fact that the political climate had been changing the nation since the late '80's and more and more states adopted 'shall issue' or other conceal-carry laws.    There are Hupps in every state, every other year, all the time.  It takes a political wind to make grabbing a Hupp-type story and running with it worth the effort.
 
This is a horrible minimization of human life.  It's also how politics work.  

With the Luby's shooting in Killeen -
Among the survivors was a woman named Suzanna Gratia Hupp. Hupp and her parents were at Luby's that day, and her parents were among the dead.
Hupp claimed that because of Texas' then-existing concealed carry laws, she was forced to leave her gun in her vehicle. If she had been allowed to carry her weapon into the facility with her, she argued, then she could have dropped the shooter before he was able to kill as many people as he did.
It was through Hupp's efforts, first as a speaker and then later as a member of the Texas House of Representatives, that the state CCW laws were overhauled.

I decided when I was young that I wanted to understand how to defend myself.  I joined the army, in part for that very reason.  I came away from that experience convinced that there is a lot to understand and learn about how to behave when being attacked.  Sadly as I read many of the opinions - I realize that a great deal of the discussion comes from opinions based entirely in ignorance. 
 
I believe (very strongly) that knowledge is the single most important element in the ability for a society to remain free.  If there is anything to learn from history we should have learned that freedom and liberty is never a default condition and like anything of value it must be maintained or it will be overrun by chaos and the opinions of the strong few will become the rule of the many - ending freedom and liberty.
 
We are seeing what appears as a shift in how those that would destroy us, our liberty and our freedom, will go about doing so.  We are experiencing how a single individual, with very little training, is able to take control of a situation, take several lives and terrorize an entire population.  The single worse response to such an attack is to limit the response of citizens - especially to limit their ability to act defensively to protect themselves.  I am not sure this principle is understood. 
 
Perhaps one of the greatest and famous examples in history is the "Trojan Horse".  The city of Troy thought themselves safe behind their strong walls - walls and thinking that became the means of their defeat and cost the citizens their lives and freedom.  Sadly not only do we have in our midst those unwilling to pull a trigger to defend anything - but their single purpose is to prevent anyone else the means to defend themselves.  This line of thinking gives our enemies such an advantage - I personally believe that the reason we are seeing such doctrine is because of an actual conspiracy by a few working with our enemies - thinking to take some advantage for themselves.  Not that everyone unwilling to defend themselves are engineering the conspiracy but that they are being used.
 
In the art of war the first goal is to create fear that will cause one's opponents to either run or hide.  This does two things - first it causes confusion and the second is that it divides those that can fight from a focus of a coordinated meeting the attack to trying to survive.  Without going any farther into the art of war - I will simply state that I am amazed at the efforts and thinking to demonize any and all resistance.  Not just among the citizen population but a movement to even demonize the police or anyone else that would or should defend - even to the point of limiting requiring that they surrender their weapons to create places of high vulnerability (called gun safe zones) as a display of "good will" that is nothing more than an invitation for an attack.  Then we are horrified when an attack occurs and dream up more way to prevent citizens from defending themselves.
 
Already the stupidly has convinced and confused so many citizens that we are seeing ever increasing examples of ordinary citizens refusing to serve the very police that protect them.  With every mass murder attack - especially in gun free zones - our enemies are learning and planning.  One of the most effective means of conducting a war is the method of attrition.  This is the simple idea of wearing down ones opponent's resources - in a chess game it is trading a pawn for a more valued piece. 
 
The next step our enemies will take is to ambush the responders to a mass killing in a gun free zone.  If this is planned with enough cleverness they will be able to generate crossfire that will result in those protecting to fire on those they are protecting.  Can you fathom the effect on many if under such conditions a citizen is killed by a police round? Not only is a war going on - we are loosing - not just to an enemy that is willing to kill but to our friends that will not stand to defend and seek to prevent us from defending ourselves.

I was never trained in this manner.  I was taught to fire until the threat is neutralized.  If that took one shot or an entire magazine.  What you don't want to do is empty your magazine if at all possible.  That's a good way to get killed, which is something I'm allergic to.  However, you are correct that you shoot only to stop a threat.  You also never shoot to simply wound.  That is something a sniper is trained to do depending on the circumstances.  I've seen snipers shoot the gun out of a perp's hand and then I've seen them shoot center mass.  Again, it all depends on the circumstances.

It can still take 2-3 seconds to reload.  That's a long time if someone is shooting a you. 

I'd heard that had changed.  It's kind of a tactically stupid move.  Sure if you know for sure that there's only one threat, you're good.  If there's another you're sitting there with an empty gun and an active threat. 

Basically the legal reason is that you were in fear of your life, and you shot to stop the threat, with no intention to kill.  Just to defend yourself.
(This is a simplified version.)
Now, police are trained to empty their magazine to stop a threat.  You keep shooting til the threat is stopped.  If they are still holding on to their weapon, even tho' they are down, they are still a threat.
But at no time to you intend to kill.  Only to defend yourself.
dc
 
It has to do with your intent.  Most crimes have to do with intent.  Intent can show that you had no criminal intent.
However, if the dead one was one you hated, and threatened to kill many times, and you saw this as an opportunity to accomplish the deed, you may be up a creek.
 
Depending on what you say.  It depends on how you tell the story.  But also what story the evidence tells.

Of COURSE you are shooting to kill. That is the whole point of a firearm -- it's designed to kill. It's not a stun gun; it's a gun gun. If you're using it, you had darn well better want to kill whatever you're shooting. (Unless you're a Jason Bourne-type superspy, trained to shoot the wings off a fly at 50 yards from the hip.)
 
I do not carry, and I have no love for guns. But my philosophy is that if I ever draw a gun on another human being, it will be ONLY because I believe I must kill him. I won't do it to make threats, and if I pull the trigger, it will be because I'm trying to kill the guy. (Technically, I'm trying to disable him, but the fact that I would be using a gun to disable him means I'm trying to disable him through death.)

This is my opinion:  I do not see any difference in attitude between a person that says, "I see no need know how to use a gun or to worry about how to defend my self, my family, my friends, community and country when there are professionals in our government and society capable and able to do this for all of us."  Or a person that says, "I see no need to become educated in a profession or to worry about providing for my self and my community when the government is actually responsible, capable and willing to provide for all our actual needs. 
 
It is in my mind a attitude of liberty and freedom in contrast to a enslaved population that must be "taken care" of.   It is the bases of the division in heaven in the pre-existence that began the "war" in heaven that we see continuing during our mortal probation.  Is is part (but not all) of the attitude that separates a Celestial individual from those of other kingdoms.

jojoBag
I have to agree with you on that.  Police are seldom first responders, but that's the litany we hear preached daily.  We are the first responders.  We are the ones there.  And we have the right, no, the duty to respond as do these alleged 'first responders" who are just coming along later to clean up the scene, or do an "investigation".
dc

I was a cop for 13 years and from my experience, the police are not really even first responders.  They are the clean up crew; they clean the mess up after the crime has been committed.  In all my years of experience, I can count the number of times I happened on a crime in progress, or responded in time to a crime in progress on both hands (not counting traffic stops).  More often than I care for, the perp isn't ever caught, especially if he is an above average criminal.
 
The best way to protect yourself is get educated on how to protect yourself in the first place.  I DO NOT recommend everyone run out and buy a weapon if you are afraid to use it.  A perp will take it and use it against you.  If you do decide to arm yourself, learn the law; learn what you can and cannot do in your defense.  After that, learn how to use your weapon and then practice, practice, practice every month.
 
Something else to remember: if you ever do have to shoot in self-defense, your never shoot to kill.  You are shooting to stop the perpetrator. You should have been trained to shoot center mass.  Of course, this is where all the vital organs are, but this also is where your rounds must go in order to stop the perp.  If he happens to die as a result of you stopping the attack, well, that's too bad.

Maybe this will help: Civilization is a thin, a very thin, layer we drape over ourselves to hide some pretty horrible realities.  There are two things that keep that layer intact.  First are individual's desires to be good.  Second are the presence of people willing and able to return horribleness with violence.
 
Lord of the Flies explores the issue in depth.  Or if you're looking for something a little more pop-culture-ly, any good zombie apocalypse film would work.

Those that think they are safe enough and do not need a gun it is only because someone else is carrying a gun to protect them.  The truth is of this modern age to be safe someone has to carry a gun to protect those that do not.  My personal reasoning is that since guns are necessary to protect me - I would rather they not carry that responsibility without any willingness on my part to so engage if ever necessary.
 
I decided in my youth that if any would have to go into combat to protect me and my loved one - I would want that ability and understanding for myself.  Not because I do not want to rely on other but when it comes to me and my loved one - I do not want those protecting us to think that they must do so without my willingness to back them.  Since someone must - I will not force responsibility on anyone that I am not willing to share.   I believe such thing should not be left to those that enjoy doing such things - I believe that if we are not willing to defend ourselves - there is not rational reason to expect anyone else to do for us what we refuse to do for ourselves.

Perhaps; but no one ever died for the lack of a trowel. 
 
Fourteen thousand Americans were murdered last year; and I'll bet a few thousand of those could have been prevented if the victims were armed.

Congrats - there's a place for you as a disciple of Christ:
 
 
   Just keep in mind these guys' kids had to take up arms and become the stripling warriors, fighting and killing bad guys so their parents could live.  That's a valid way as well.  There's room for both philosophies.  Don't judge mine, and I won't judge yours.  Deal?

You have every right to feel that way and act that way.  Where that right ends however is when someone who feels the way you do decides that I have to act the same way.  I'm not saying you're doing that here, but once someone says "I don't want to have to think about having a gun around all the time, AND YOU SHOULDN'T EITHER."  That's where it gets a bit sticky. 
 
 
Edited to add.
 
I just read the other post you referred to.  The thing you have to understand about carrying concealed.  After a short time, carrying a gun becomes no different than carrying a wallet. It's on your person and a part of your clothing. I also carry a flashlight, leatherman, knife, keys etc.  I don't think about whether or not I have them, I just do.  My muscle memory knows where each is.  I don't think "Gee I need my keys where are they?"  I think I need to open my car door and my hand goes to my left pocket. A gun is simply a tool I carry with me.  My hands know where it is and will retrieve it without further conscious thought when needed, and will otherwise leave it unmolested unless I do think about it.  

Sadly, as Tolkein's Eowyn notes (at least, in the movie):  "The women of this country learned long ago, those without swords can still die upon them."

I can about guarantee that if you're in a "Gun Free Zone" anywhere around where I live, it ain't gun free.   Concealed means concealed. 

If someone is killed by gun fire - obviously it was not a gun free zone.

I don't feel "safe" in a "gun free zone".  I feel like a sittiing duck.
dc

I'm all for private property rights.  I respect the rights of businessowners, homeowners, private schools and universities and whatnot, to ban guns.
 
But they're stupid if they do so without hardening security.  Because banning guns does squat to make people safe.  They may make people feel safe, but that's it.  

Am watching the latest news conference.
 
It is striking in the comments of the sheriff, who refused to name the shooter and stated that the shooter's name will not be spoken by him, ever.  He made additional comments regarding this point and I have to say his words and manner were striking and powerful.  His concerns and energies clearly lie with the victims and their families.