Would massacres in Mumbai have been lessened if Indians were armed?
Instapundit asks the question. I'd agree there was a good chance casualties would have been reduced. Rush into a crowded room shooting, and there's a big difference if the attacker has to worry about getting shot in the back. Not to mention about being perforated while he is changing magazines.
And Instapundit reports that there were only ten terrorists. I really wouldn't give ten men attacking a few thousand Tucsonans much of a chance. About 2% of Pima County has a CCW permit; others carry openly or have one in their car (you don't need a permit to have a holstered gun in the glove compartment). So an attack on 2,000 people means an attack on *at least* forty who have a gun on them, and more who will have one available in seconds. A fair number of whom will be behind the attackers' backs.
UPDATE: the report that the killers went from room to room, sometimes calling first to see if anyone answered. No matter what weapon the killer carries, kicking in a door and charging in is only safe if the occupants are unarmed.
ANOTHER UPDATE: a photographer who unsuccessfully tried to get police to open fire says "I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera."