When you read about the details of the worst mass shootings in history, one thing stands out: there was no one there to react to take down the shooter. On the flip side, one thing stands out about mass shootings that are stopped before they can get too bloody: someone reacted to stop the shooter.
In the case of the latest attempted mass shooting at a California synagogue, only one person was killed, a woman who took a bullet to defend the life of her rabbi. While the shooter’s gun also jammed, he was prevented from trying to clear that jam and continue shooting by the presence of armed congregants, including an off-duty Border Patrol agent.
Those congregants immediately acted to engage the shooter, yelling at him, pursuing him, and eventually firing shots at his car as he sped off. Had it not been for their actions, the shooter undoubtedly would have been able to get his firearm back into action and shoot dozens more people. This just goes to show that reacting immediately against active shooters can disrupt their plans, and that an armed good guy is necessary to stop an armed bad guy.
Compare this case to the one at UNC Charlotte, in which a student attacked the shooter but was shot and killed in the process. He undoubtedly helped to save lives, but had he had a gun he would have been able to stop the shooter sooner and save his own life in the process.
Why so many people fail to realize that a good guy with a gun is necessary to take on a bad guy with a gun is puzzling. Many people seem to think that banning guns will result in bad guys not being able to acquire guns, which is demonstrably false. Let’s just hope that more and more people realize that the right people with guns can prevent a whole slew of mayhem, so that the political pressure to ban guns continues to dissipate.
This article was originally posted on Red Tea News.
