Some people believe that more people owning and carrying guns is the answer to fighting the gun problem because they believe that an armed citizenry can deter crime and prevent mass shootings. They argue that if more people were armed, potential attackers would be less likely to target them as they would fear being shot themselves. Additionally, they argue that armed citizens can intervene and stop an attack before it turns into a mass shooting.

Supporters of this view often point to specific incidents where armed citizens have intervened and stopped a potential mass shooting. For example, in 2017, a man with a rifle opened fire on a church in Texas, killing 26 people. An armed citizen who lived nearby heard the gunfire, grabbed his own rifle, and engaged the attacker, ultimately forcing him to flee. This incident is often cited as evidence that armed citizens can be effective in stopping mass shootings.

Another argument made by supporters of increased gun ownership is that it is a constitutional right protected by the Second Amendment. They believe that any attempts to restrict gun ownership or carry rights are an infringement on their rights and will not solve the problem of gun violence.

Opponents of this view argue that more guns in circulation will only lead to more gun violence. They point out that countries with strict gun control laws have significantly lower rates of gun violence than the United States. Additionally, they argue that the idea of a "good guy with a gun" stopping a mass shooting is a myth, as it is difficult for even trained law enforcement officers to respond effectively in such situations.

In conclusion, while some people believe that more people owning and carrying guns is the answer to fighting the gun problem, there is significant debate over whether this approach is effective or even safe. It is a complex issue with no easy solutions, and it is important to consider multiple perspectives and approaches in order to address the problem of gun violence.