Uh... Yeah? I mean it seems safe to assume that you can fire faster with a gun than without one. Particularly since without a gun you presumably don't have anything to fire at all?
What exactly were they trying to prove with this claim?
Too bad. Their choice to be unarmed doesn't override the choice of other people to exercise their god-given right to be armed.
Mass shootings are caused by mentally ill lunatics,
troons (which is the same thing) and allegedly "gun free zones" like public schools, where the shooter knows they are the only armed person while everyone else is disarmed. This is exactly why allowing people more opportunities to be armed and to engage in self defense is the solution, not more disarmed potential victims.
Also, exactly which "statistics" are they referring to? What definition of "mass shooting" are they referring to? The heavily publicized tragedy scenarios where whole schools of innocent kids get mowed down are still amazingly rare. Most of the so-called "mass shootings" people are usually pulling out of the air are inner city gang bangers shooting at each other.