Here’s definitive proof that a good guy with a gun doesn’t always stop a bad guy with a gun. That’s the headline malingering over an opinion piece by CNN Editor At (Is?) Large Chris Cillizza [not shown]. And it goes a little something like this . . .
There was a good guy with a gun just outside the school when the bad guy with a gun started murdering people. The good guy with the gun wasn’t the solution. He didn’t stop it.
What the Parkland school shooting exposes is the fallacy in LaPierre’s argument: This is not a simple problem. And it does not have a simple solution like arming more people.
Not every good guy with a gun is going to stop a bad guy with a gun. Why did Peterson stay outside of the school when the shooting started? And why did he remain there even as the shooter was inside actively murdering people? Was it cowardice? Did he freeze? Was he waiting for backup? Was he told not to enter the building? Something else? . . .
Simply saying “to stop a bad guy with a gun, it takes a good guy with a gun” is a totally insufficient way to deal with a problem as complex as why we have so many of these mass shootings (unlike the rest of the world) and how we can work to ensure they happen far less and cause less loss of life.
It’s also not true. Just look at what happened nine days ago at Stoneman Douglas High School.
Do you think anyone’s picking up what Cillizza is putting down? That the police officer’s failure to use their firearms in defense of innocent life is “definitive proof” that teachers shouldn’t be armed? And that the idea that any armed civilian can stop a spree killer is some kind of NRA con?
Or did the inexcusable inability of Deputy Peterson [above right] to stop the homicidal rage of Nikolas Cruz [above left] serve as a wake-up call to Americans who truly believed the police are the best bet to protect their children?
Did Peterson’s inaction opened some eyes to the life-saving importance of their own natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms?