Last Friday in New York City, Jeffrey Johnson shot and killed his former boss Steve Ercolino in front of the Empire State Building. The incident resulted in two deaths and nine gun-related injuries. This came at a time when both US presidential candidates had already moved on from July's mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado which left 12 people dead.

After the Colorado shooting, American gun pundits stood by the popular theory which claims that if other people are armed then your average gun-wielding maniac can be prevented from shooting others.

Many people in the US think owning a gun is a cure rather than a cause of gun violence.

This recent incident in NYC has now created a different kind of challenge to this idea. It should inspire people to address the idea that having guns means less shootings would occur and fewer people would be shot.

There are many people in America who feel other mass shootings could have been prevented had people nearby been armed.

But look what happened in NYC, when highly trained police officers took down a lone gunman who had already shot and killed his intended victim, nine unarmed innocent bystanders were shot in broad daylight. 

Professionals make mistakes whether inside operating rooms, courtrooms, or corporate boardrooms, and the police are no exception.

Earlier in August police officers in Brooklyn, while chasing a suspected drug dealer, accidentally shot an innocent bystander in the leg. 

Will events like these inspire gun owners to think twice before leaving their homes with concealed guns thinking they're prepared to save the day if the moment arises? Probably not. If people who have received professional firearm training make mistakes, then what do you think the average untrained American gun owners will do in a violent situation?

After the shooting in NYC, initial media reports said Jeffrey Johnson shot 11 people.

The knee-jerk reaction in thinking he was responsible for all the casualties was not implausible considering incidents of this nature in the part. But surprisingly, there are no statistics on innocent bystanders who have been shot by police fire. These should exist, however, if only to let the general public knows that having a gun is no guarantee of safety and protection.

This brings me back to the movie theater shooting in Aurora. What if a handful of people had been armed when James Holmes opened fire in the theater auditorium? What kind of chaos and further tragedy would have happened had a roomful of armed people started shooting while frightened in the dark?

To answer that, all we need to do is look at what happened when trained police fired on the New York gunman.

It was reported that after the Aurora shooting, Colorado experienced a 41 percent increase in background checks for people who wanted to buy a gun. The following Monday gun stores in Denver were busier than normal.

Were people buying guns to protect themselves from future shooters, or were they doing so out of fear that they one day wouldn't be able to own a gun? The first amendment comes under attack almost daily in America, but the second amendment, ironically enough, is bullet proof. Which amendment has caused more harm?

In 2009, US President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for basically defeating an old war veteran and his bizarrely ignorant running mate to win the US presidency. 

Well, now it's time for him to step and earn the trophy many people hold in high esteem.

If Obama plans on doing anything to curb gun violence in America, then he's smart to keep his cards close to his vest. And if he wins in November, which I believe he will, it'll give him the opportunity to do what no other US presidents have ever done - actively try to remedy America's gun problem.

The author is a copy editor with the Global Times. lance.crayon@globaltimes.com.cn