My question is, why didn't the other guy with a family make sure he could respond to the threat effectively? What would he have been able to do had the shooter been firing at his wife or son instead of him other than be a human shield? Give me 2 hours and I can be in possession of a firearm with no background check and no questions asked from a person that I am quite certain cannot lawfully own firearms. It isn't that I know who to go to, it is just that I know what part of town to go to. I can lawfully own firearms, but if I can do it, a criminal can too.
Frankly, this is a pointless article meant to vilify guns and we lawful gun owners that own and carry them. I agree, typical New York Times.