TXAZ, hopefully your second example doesn't turn into a circular firing squad.
THAT would still be a better outcome then allowing the gunman to shoot scores of people at will.
So 5 people killed in a crossfire OR 50 killed by an unopposed gunman. The math is simple to me. YMMV
Both are extreme cases, although Orlando was significantly closer to the first than the second scenario. A quick internet search shows that about once a year, 'someone' walks into a police station and starts shooting up the place, and generally are killed after shooting 4-7 people and being shot themselves.
So it isn't so easy to just point to police station shootings and intimate that they turn out so well because they are places where people are armed. Most of the shooting don't happen inside of police stations. Usually, there are not very many people present when the shootings start. And when you read through the articles, you will find that in many instances, it is just suicide by cop, not really any sort of serious attempt at a mass shooting.
One is that you don't take an innocent life, even to save more innocents.
The idea of others shooting and hitting innocents evoke the emotional and not rational calculation.
Lose some to save many....yes again.
And yes fratricide might be illegal, but I'd take my chances with a jury after the fact on that one, vs. being a likely statistic in the ground.
In my opinion were on a wayyy off the subject talking about fratricide. There is a huge difference between chosing fratricide vs. accidentally shooting the wrong person in a gunfight. Nobody here is condoning fratricide as a tactic to stop a shooter.