In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary school massacre gun control advocates are frothing at the mouths.  Manu Americans feel that they see this as an opportunity to press for stricter gun control laws.  In fact they even have the president on their side (presumably Obama is now energized by the recent tragedy to do something with or without congressional approval.  See executive orders) in this latest oush to enact toughewr gun control laws.

From motherjones.com we get the liberal headline: 

Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No.

Mark Follman WROTE:  In the wake of the unthinkable massacre in Connecticut, pro-gun ideologues are once again calling for ordinary citizens to arm themselves as a solution to mass shootings. If only the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary School had possessed a M-4 assault rifle she could've stopped the killer, they say. This latest twist on a long-running argument isn't just absurd on its face; there is no evidence to support it. As I reported recently in our in-depth investigation, not one of the 62 mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years has been stopped this way. More broadly, attempts by armed civilians to intervene in shooting rampages are rare—and are successful even more rarely. (Two people who tried it in recent years were gravely wounded or killed.) And law enforcement overwhelmingly hates the idea.

Yet, on gunwatch.blogspot.com we find sxeveral instances where armed civilians actually DID stop mass shooters from taking even more lives.  The proof is in the pooding so to say, seemingly refuting what Mr. Follman wrote.  So why do writers like him not share the whole truth and nothing but the trruth on how civilian actually can and have helped out in mass shooter situations?  Perhaps because they have another agenda which has nothing to do witrh exposing the truth?!?  What could that agenda be?

What are your thoughts?