The “good guy with a gun” seemingly did happen here - a civilian (i.e. neither security, police nor military) shot an active shooter and stopped the drama.

But relying on “good guy with a gun” is not a meaningful security policy as it actively encourages arming civilians. In case of an imminent threat like an active shooter - which one of the armed, non-uniformed civilians are friendly, neutral or enemies? And how do they communicate their afilliation to bystanders, fellow armed citizens and security forces - in a way that could not be exploited by an active shooter himself? Employing this as a general security policy would proliferate more guns in the society and teach everyone to be vigilant of each other, thus increasing distrust. It can also attribute to shifting the blame to victims of shootings: Why didn’t they arm themselves and shoot first?

In my view, reducing the amount of guns or at least the volume of fire (think 6-shooter revolvers instead of 17-round semiautomatics) would reduce the amount of gunshot victims in the time between start of an active shooting and the arrival of security forces that would then handle the situation professionally. A stressed-out amateur with a handgun is not as helpful as a professional, and can actually increase to the drama due to increasing uncertainty in identification of friend or foe.

Didn’t read the articles, did you.

So the one guy that got thrown clear of the car, uninjured, in a rollover accident where he didn’t use a seatbelt means nobod should wear a seatbelt in a car accident?