Let us listen to John Lott describe a situation where gunmen firing on innocent civilians were surprised by some of their
intended victims firing back!
"Other examples suggest that more than just common crimes may be prevented by law-abiding citizens carrying
concealed handguns.  Referring to the July, 1984, massacre at a San Ysidro, California, McDonalds restaurant, Israeli
criminologist Abraham Tennenbaum described what occurred at a crowded venue in Jerusalem some weeks before the
Californian McDonald's massacre:  three terrorists who attempted to machine-gun the throng managed to kill only one
victim before being shot down by handgun-carrying Israelis.  Presented to the press the next day, the surviving terrorist
complained that his group had not realized that Israeli civilians were armed .  The terrorists had planned to
machine-gun a succession of crowd spots, thinking that they would be able to escape before the police or army could
arrive to deal with them." ]
Obviously, the fact that Israeli civilians were carrying concealed weapons, and immediately used them, prevented an even
larger death toll.  Had these gunmen encountered only unarmed civilians they might have been able to kill 50 or more
people!  How big would the outcry been then?  But, no one in any Liberal Media ever reported this story from the aspect
that the possession of guns had prevented a huge tragedy.
John Lott makes a very good observation:  "Yet just because a law is passed to ban guns, it does not automatically follow
that the total number of deaths will decline.  Given the large stock of guns in the country, and given the difficulties the
government faces in preventing other illegal items, such as drugs, from entering the country, it is not clear how successful
the government would be in eliminating most guns."
Everyone who supports the modification or elimination of our Second Amendment of the Constitution is placing a huge --
and unwarranted -- faith in the Federal and State Governments to be able to enforce the new laws in such a way as to
simultaneously disarm the criminal while offering individual protection to citizens that will now most assuredly be
disarmed.  Most police departments will admit -- privately at least -- that they cannot ever offer this kind of individual
protection.  Yet, criminals will know for sure that 100% of their victims will be disarmed.
Lott again states the problem a little more clearly.  "This raises the important question of whether the law would primarily
reduce the number of guns held by law-abiding citizens.  How would such a law alter the relative balance of power between
criminals and law-abiding citizens?  Suppose it were possible to remove all guns. Other questions would arise.  Would
successfully removing guns discourage murders and other crimes because criminals would find knives and clubs poor
alternatives?  Would it be easier for criminals to prey on the weakest citizens, who would find it more difficult to defend
themselves?"

His book is very good.  I read it and ended up using it in a report for English 111-009.  Also you can get the second edition in paperback for $12 or something, a book everyone should read.