Never doubt the ability of the anti-gun left to twist themselves into knots to defend their nonsensical agenda, and sure enough, that’s happening after a good guy with a gun dropped a mass shooter in Indiana.
As RedState reported on Sunday evening, a man entered a mall in Greenwood Park, IN, opening fire and killing three people. Before he could continue his rampage though, a “good samaritan,” as described by the police, used a concealed pistol to take the shooter out. But while most celebrated, that ending was very inconvenient for the narrative of those who, just hours earlier, had been using a report out of Uvalde, TX, to assert that not even “400 trained” police officers could take out a shooter with an AR-15.
One of those making that case was Shannon Watts of the anti-gun group “Moms Demand Action.” She took to social media to parrot the “400” line, insinuating that it was nuts to think that an armed civilian could possibly take out a shooter with an AR-15 (even though that just happened in West Virginia weeks prior to this writing).
Yet, after the shooter in Indiana was neutralized by an armed bystander, Watts quickly changed her tune.
You have to love the fact that Watts retweets herself, but I digress. This is a woman who wants to have it both ways, and unfortunately for her, that’s not how any of this works.
As those who support the Second Amendment have been pointing out, the presence of law enforcement does not equal having “good guys with a gun” if they ultimately stand around and do nothing. There wasn’t a lack of firepower or ability in Uvalde. There was a lack of will to take the shooter out. Focusing on the number of guns present (all law enforcement) and pretending the shooter in the classroom was some insurmountable force is ludicrous. An armed SRO or teacher could have absolutely stopped or limited the carnage because when you are in the midst of an active shooter situation, you don’t have the luxury to stand around waiting for orders.
Logically, there is simply no downside to having a real “good guy with a gun” present at the scene of a mass shooting. Will that person always take the shooter out? Of course not. But having the possibility, even if it’s only a coin flip, is a lot better than having zero chance to take the shooter out before they cause maximum damage.
So contrary to Watts’ assertion, what happened in Indiana was a good outcome because we don’t live in a fantasy world where everything can be perfectly scripted out. Mass killers will continue to exist because the environment that spawns them will continue to exist. They will use long guns, pistols, cars, bombs, and any number of other devices to commit their crimes. You can’t “ban” your way out of that reality. What you can do is enable law-abiding individuals to have a chance to assist.
That’s what happened in Indiana and it’s what happened in West Virginia recently. Anyone suggesting that it would have been better to not have an armed “good samaritan” around is essentially stumping for a higher body count to support their political narrative.