My response to one of those "luckily, a passerby happened to be armed" stories, because I believe in gun control but think good gun control would be consistent with some qualified "good citizens" permitted to possess and carry loaded weapons:
I believe the sensible corollary to sane gun control is an armed public, i.e., many "law abiding" carrying and able to act as lay peacekeepers. Why can't 2nd-amendment zealots see that a gun-control agenda, even a leftist one, does not entail disarming good people. You could have an armed public and many a fortuitous "passerby was carrying" story and still go forward with strong laws attempting to restrict some weapons and modes of ammunition, stringent clearance requirements for purchase of same, and much stepped-up regulation such as licensing and registration, even inspections by public safety officers to be sure gun owners are properly storing and keeping their piece or arsenal. Then maybe there would be measurable curtailment of the shooting folks in movies thing, and ghouls coming to slaughter first-graders. But in this we liberals are the sensible ones, with the right wing clearly the ones getting wild-eyed and unreasonable.
SGTex, Native Texan, SGI Buddhist Hippie