I’ve heard it said by gun advocates that all that’s needed to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. The idea is that we need more guns, not fewer. We just need them in the hands of the good people.
I doubt that means we are going to take guns away from bad people. That would fall under the heading of gun control. Well then, can we get more good people to get guns?
That might not help. On the average there are already 1.2 guns for every man, woman and child in the U.S. Since not many children are packing, that means there are probably already a lot of good people with more than one gun, maybe more than two.
Which brings me to the spate of mass shootings. If those numbers are right, it’s extremely likely that there were at least some “good guys (or women)” with guns at most of the mass shootings we’ve heard about over the past few years. However, with the exception of the armed private citizen who killed an active mass shooter at an Indiana mall, I haven’t heard of a mass shooter who was stopped by a good guy with a gun.
The idea that it could, is flawed. Just because someone has, let’s say a handgun, it doesn’t [mean] they would have the ability or courage, or both, to confront at close quarters a desperate, possibly deranged, opponent with an assault rifle and body armor. The Indiana mall hero, it should be noted, fired first from a distance estimated at 120 feet. Not exactly close-quarters combat.
At the supermarket in Buffalo, my bet is that all of the handgun carriers were cowering under display cases like everyone else.