Nukes take time before hitting, at least long enough that the other can fire off their nukes. Unless 2 people are at a stand off you wont have enough time to kill the person that shoots you, so mutual destruction wouldnt work. And bystander syndrome would mean 99% of the people that do have guns will run away or cower in fear. The 1% that shoot could very well miss causing more damage since firing off a gun isnt as easy as saying a cool one liner then head shotting the bad guy while holding the gun sideways with 1 hand. Though it could help in a lot of situations.
That said its not like im against people having guns. There is no real winning situation here. Making getting guns easier means more people would be able to defend themselves but more shootings would occur. Making guns harder to obtain while it might lower some shootings rates wouldnt affect it by much since getting guns illegally is easy and people would have less means of defending themselves when they do get caught up in such a situation.
The situation that i think would be best is if they further non lethal weapons like making Tazers better and a viable option and give those out.
It's a fallacy to believe that people actually defend themselves with guns when confronted with an armed attacker. Even trained officers and soldiers falter under gunfire, and they are both specifically trained and expect to go into those situations. Saying you need a gun for self-defense is like claiming your Taekwondo lessons are for self defense. There's legit reasons to have it, there's recreational reasons to have it, but that specific one is bullshit in 999 of 1000 cases.
Dude read my first paragraph i literally say that 99% would cower in fear or run away even with guns.
IF we are talking about a mass shooting the people at the forefront would most likely be useless, its the people that are far enough from the situation that would be able to fight back with their own guns. OP is talking about the idea that if everyone in a group had a gun then one would be less likely to fire in that group as at least one victim would fire back. Of course that heavily relies on the fact that the shooter values their life. There have been situations where people fought back against shooters without a gun so given the opportunity that a person has a gun and has not been noticed by the shooter, its not too far of a stretch that more people would fight back.
And that would be much more likely to leave a bystander dead than the attacker. That's my point. The way people react in actual life-or-death combat situations, especially when firearms are involved, are nothing like what happens in movies, video games, etc. People definitely do take defensive measures, but there is a large difference between lunging at an attacker(even an armed one) and unholstering a weapon, judging distance, making your target, making sure there isn't a bystander in the way, firing, etc. on the spur of a moment when everyone around you is also panicking and rushing in every direction.
Despite the tone my post might have had, I was actually agreeing with you for the most part. Not sure where the hostility was coming from. I was just adding onto what you were already saying.
I would like to point out I have personally known people that would be dead or have been severely hurt had it not been for defending themselves with a gun. now with that said guns aren't for everyone, not everyone has the right mindset to handle one, as pointed out some would be too scared to use it effectively. ---
Cid- "looks like that overgrown lobster just got served!" Bartz-"with cheese biscuts AND mashed potatoes!"