Your headline makes it sound like guns are a bad thing. If it is so bad, why can you only find one instance to quote... an instance that happened over six years ago involving a person who I understand was not licensed to carry a gun.

Guns are not the enemy here... those who continually try to take away the rights of law abiding citizens are the enemy.

Those interested in mass murder selectively choose "no weapons zones." The University of Virginia was a "no weapons zone." Trolley Square is a "no weapons zone." The Ogden police officer who cut short the murderous rampage was not in uniform, and out of his jurisdiction, and therefore not in compliance with Trolley Square's policy.

But was that a good thing or not?

How many more people could have been killed in the 3 minutes before uniformed police arrived, had not the Ogden officer responded?

By definition, criminals do not obey laws. They do not own guns legally. They do not carry guns legally. And they don't obey silly signs. Only law abiding citizens obey laws and signs. So why would we try and further punish law abiding citizens and enact legislation and policies that do nothing to stop criminals? It is simply feel good madness.

Joe's question is kind of circular. "Why have laws when they are broken?" Answer - "..so we can enforce it against those who break it, while making things safer generally." And I wouldn't put too much faith in Joe's attempt to give us the mental processes of "those interested in mass murder." That would be kind of hard to know, wouldn't it?