However, this article is more about the inevitable topic of guns. I wrote about it back in July when the Dark Knight Rises shootings happened and my stance on gun control hasn't really changed much. This time though, I want to point out something that supports my stance: it was armed resistance that stopped these mad men. It wasn't reasoning, it wasn't pleading. It was someone else with a gun that stopped them.
In Alabama, a shooter was shot dead in a hospital before he could do more than wound two individuals. Despite the gunman in Connecticut (btw, I will NOT ever put these monsters' names in my posts because they do not deserve anything more than being a random mad man) already killing 27 people, it was the oncoming police force that made him stop his killing spree and take his own life. The Wisconsin Sikh Temple shooter shot himself after he was shot by the police. The Fort Hood shooter was brought down by gunfire from a policeman.
So what though, we still lost lives, right? Yes, but there's no doubt in my mind we would have lost many more had these mad men been allowed to do as they please. The Connecticut shooter had enough ammunition to do even more than the horrific damage he'd already done. If he didn't have a gun to begin with, this would have never happened, right? That's the usual response. Unless you want to completely ban guns from all citizens everywhere (which is very very bad and I doubt will never happen), then someone intent on an action like this will find a way to get a gun. They will find a way to get bullets. There will always be a potential for tragedy in this nation. It is just a fact.
So what do you do when there's potential for a mad man to just come in and start shooting? The answer is simple, though repugnant to many gun control advocates: you have your own armed resistance at the ready. Not the police. Not the sheriff. Seeing how the Connecticut shooter killed himself when he knew other people with guns were coming for him, what would have happened if several members of the faculty had been trained on how to use a firearm and actually had one readily available? What if the school had an armed hall monitor? What if the school simply had, instead of "no weapon zone" signs, had signs that said "this facility is protected by the use of firearms"? Maybe, just maybe, more lives, if not all of them, could have been saved.
Granted, yes, there are potential pitfalls with having a gun in the presence of children or public places. Some tragic accident could happen. But, I'd rather take on a risk mitigated by proper training and awareness than allow an evil person walk in unopposed and create victims. Because that's what having guns is all about: not being a potential victim. This latest tragedy can be used as another point showing how evil likes to prey on the weak and helpless. And the moment those who were not weak and helpless arrived, this evil man stopped. Evil is not going to commit evil in a place where they risk being stopped from committing their acts. They'll look for the easiest targets. So if a gun toting madman knows he has a few minutes before armed resistance appears, what would he do if he knew he only had a few seconds?
The bottom line is evil needs to be fought. Fighting means being armed and ready to fight evil wherever it appears. If you're not willing to fight or arm yourself, you're just inviting evil people to make you another victim.