Don't worry mass shooters try to go where their are plenty of victims and no one to stop them quickly. So gun free zones.
The mass shooter would be riddled with bullets. Why? Well, if the President/Vice President was there, the Secret Service would take him out. If the President wasn't there, the crowd would. NRA conventions allow people to CCW carry, unless the President/Vice President was there. This is a silly scenario. No mass shooter would try to attack such a heavily armed event. (are you related to Sackeshi?)
The only time firearms aren't allowed is if the President/Vice President are present. In that case, the Secret Service doesn't allow it.
Wouldn't happen the way you think. People that take the time to get a CCW and are carrying concealed are cautious, and won't be running around shooting everybody. When the cops came they would put their guns down. People that get a CCW are the kind of people who have fire extinguishers in their cars, and who wear both belts and suspenders.
Thank you, you just told us why guns are protection (I've added bolding to where you said this). They can be used to intimidate the people attacking. Honestly, that's my main reason for wanting a gun for self defense. I'm hoping that the sight of the gun will de-escalate the situation. No other legal weapon can do that. A baseball bat or a knife require getting within close quarters, which is the last thing I want to do.
Can you prove that is the case with every single person who has a CCW permit? Or are there some of them that just get a CCW because they want to be able to shoot back immediately any shooting occurs, including at an NRA convention. Reality leans towards the latter rather than the former.
My dogs are intimidating and are far more protection than any gun because I know they will ALWAYS hit their target. Yes, my dogs are legal and a way better form of self defense because they protect my family and my house 24*7 even when I am not there to do it. That makes them far better than any gun could ever be when it comes to close quarters protection.
Replying to a question with another question: What would happen if someone in a van intentionally smashed into a placard carrying group of pro gun activists, killing several? What do you think would happen? They'd give up trying to further regulate guns?
But your dogs can kill without your orders, which is both a bad and good thing. My gun will only kill if I choose it to. Also, my gun doesn't require vet bills.
My property is signposted so any trespasser is doing so at their risk. The problems with your gun are that it is useless unless you have it with you and you are in a vulnerable situation. It does not attack as a deterrent to anyone until you are already in that situation. My dogs are a far more effective deterrent since they provide an early warning and will be an immediate retaliation against any actual threat that subsequently develops giving me and my family time to ensure our own safety first and foremost. Vet bills are a tiny expense to pay for that level of protection.
If that happened, plans would be put forward to start arming guns with guns. Every gun would have a gun to stop the bad guy's with the guns. But then when the bad guy's guns get guns, we'll have to start arming the guns on the guns on the guns. No matter what occurs though, the answer is always guns.
One of neighbors was telling me about being sued because her dog had attacked someone else's dog that came onto her property. It was thrown out of court because the other dog was not on a leash and had trespassed onto property that was clearly marked with beware of the dog signs. The judge ordered the person filing the law suit to reimburse her for her legal expenses. Yes, most insurance policies do include liability coverage for dogs.