I'm an advocate for gun control. I'm open to a range of options for, and degrees of, gun control, but I believe something needs to change. Just like there are some limits on the First Amendment (you can't say "fire" in a crowded theater), there should be some reasonable limits on the Second Amendment (you can't get ready, aim, and fire in a crowded theater).
And yet, statistically, the likelihood of actually being harmed by gun violence is still very, very low. We're still much more likely to be harmed by things that we accept as risks (car accidents, unhealthy diets, violence on the part of loved ones) than things that FEEL viscerally scary (gun violence, terrorism, violence on the part of strangers) but have a much lower incidence. I realize it's incredibly important to acknowledge the terrible pain that people have suffered as a result of gun violence, terrorism, etc., but I still think it's important to think statistically, not just based on raw emotion, when assessing risk.
In terms of witnessing someone abusing a child, that's actually a really hard one, because it's always dangerous to intervene when you witness someone being violent, whether it's with fists or firearms. The smart thing might be to first discretely call 911 and then distract the person ("Hey, I'm looking for a lost dog," whatever) until the cops arrive.
P.S. NYMetromom, I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but your post is racist. I'd respectfully recommend that you look into your own house, and consider your own assumptions, before applying blatantly racist stereotypes to strangers. I'm sure you'd want people to do the same for you.