Anti-Gun Activist Rages After Good Guy With a Gun Drops Mass Shooter in Indiana – Opinion

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.

RedState reports that a suspect broke into a Greenwood Park mall, IN and set fire to three victims. 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.

Here’s a taste of what I mean.

Lol pic.twitter.com/spaCO0zvOp

— Wind Up Alligator Hooch (@CompanyHooch) July 18, 2022

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).

Watts changed her mind quickly after an unarmed witness in Indiana stopped the Indiana shooter.

Lady, make your decision. pic.twitter.com/LhJ6OV5ByU

— jimtreacher.substack.com (@jtLOL) July 18, 2022

Removed pic.twitter.com/QfPyoMUPQJ

— Jack Posobic 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) July 18, 2022

It’s amazing that Watts tweets back, but it is a great thing. 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. The shooter was not being taken out. It is absurd to focus on how many guns were present, which includes all law enforcement. 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. Is that the person who will always get rid of the gunman? It’s unlikely. 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. Because of the conditions that they are able to thrive, mass murderers will always exist. For their crimes they will be able to use guns long and short, as well pistols, vehicles, bombs, and other tools. You can’t “ban” your way out of that reality. All you can do, however is to give law-abiding citizens the chance to help.

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.