You should not underestimate the power of the anti-gun left to twist their heads to defend their absurd agenda. This is what happened after an Indiana gunman killed a mass shooter.
A man opened fire at a Greenwood Park mall, IN on Sunday, killing three people. The police describe the incident as a “good Samaritan” who used a concealed gun to stop the shooter from continuing his rampage. This ending is not only celebrated but also very frustrating for those who had just hours before used a Uvalde report to state that not even “400” police officers were capable of taking out a shooter using an AR-15.
Here’s a sample of what I mean.
— Wind Up Alligator Hooch (@CompanyHooch) July 18, 2022
Shannon Watts, an anti-gun activist from “Moms Demand Action,” was one of those who made that argument. She used social media to recite the “400” line and suggested that it was crazy to believe that an AR-15-wielding civilian could kill a shooter (even though this happened just weeks before).
Watts changed her mind quickly after an unarmed bystander stopped the Indiana shooter.
One civilian with a gun was more effective than 400 cops with guns, and this is the lunacy that spews forth from this woman’s brain. pic.twitter.com/KSfndS8oBA
— jimtreacher.substack.com (@jtLOL) July 18, 2022
— Jack Posobic 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) July 18, 2022
It’s amazing that Watts retweets her own tweets. But I digress. This woman wants it all, but unfortunately, for her, it doesn’t work that way.
Supporters of the Second Amendment are pointing out that law enforcement doesn’t equal “good guys with guns” if they just stand by and do nothing. Uvalde had plenty of firepower and ability. The shooter was not being taken out. It is absurd to focus on the number and strength of the guns (all law enforcement) while pretending that the shooter was insurmountable. A teacher or SRO armed with guns could have stopped the violence. You don’t have time to wait for orders when you are in an active shooter situation.
Logically speaking, there are no disadvantages to having a “good guy” with a gun at the scene. Is that person going to always get the shooter out of trouble? No. Even if it is just a coin flip, having the chance to eliminate the shooter before they do maximum damage is better than not having any.
Watts is wrong to claim that Indiana’s events were a positive outcome. We don’t live on a perfect world. They will continue to be mass killers because they will continue to thrive in the same environment that gave rise to them. To commit their crimes, they will use long guns and pistols as well as cars, bombs, and other weapons. It is impossible to “ban” them from living with that reality. You can only help law-abiding people to offer assistance.
It’s what happened recently in West Virginia and Indiana. Anyone who suggests that it would be better not to have an armed “good Samaritan” around is simply trying to get a larger body count to support their political narrative.