Another reason having armed citizens on site protect themselves is a hell of an idea.

This is particularly troubling - to say the least - and sadly, given the current biases in our own major media, I am more inclined to believe the BBC than the US press.  If borne out, some heads need to roll over this decision.

We all - at least those of us who are not ignorant defenseless people - that "When seconds count a police are minutes away".  But low and behold, in this case that response was much closer than it might usually be or have seemed.  I, for one, would prefer not to be trapped, unarmed, in a building with an active shooter while bull shit games are played outside.  But if such trained active shooter intervention teams are not going to be allowed to do their job even when they are on scene early, then how do we expect unarmed civilians to survive?

Apparently we don't.  The idea that this active shooter, armed with a shotgun and two pistols and not wearing any body armor, was able to stroll the compound unimpeded is unconscionable.  To suggest that he could not have been taken down or at least stifled with suppressive fire from one or more armed civilians in the area is preposterous and motivated prevarication.  At least the dead and injured could have had a chance to defend themselves, to survive or stop the carnage.  But, as usual, those who create and revel these gun free zones appear to prefer that people in them die rather than protect themselves - this serves only to foment tragedy and fuel a given political agenda.

Update:  Just more information here to suggest that a well-trained armed civilian could likely have stopped this before it ever got as far as it did.