Without knowing any details of this case and the actual situation that happened - at one point in time, a civilian with a firearm opened fire at another (minor) with a firearm because there was a possible danger scenario near a school.
How did the “good guy” in this scenario know exactly that this was the right call to open fire, and not just another possible “good guy with a gun”?
In this case, he was evidently correct, well done! But it could easily have become a terrible blue-on-blue scenario as well.
To me, this single “good guy with a gun” scenario does not justify the fact that firearms are so widespread that the “bad guy” easily got his own, and became more deadly as a result.
Without knowing any details of this case and the actual situation that happened - at one point in time, a civilian with a firearm opened fire at another (minor) with a firearm because there was a possible danger scenario near a school. How did the “good guy” in this scenario know exactly that this was the right call to open fire, and not just another possible “good guy with a gun”?
In this case, he was evidently correct, well done! But it could easily have become a terrible blue-on-blue scenario as well.
To me, this single “good guy with a gun” scenario does not justify the fact that firearms are so widespread that the “bad guy” easily got his own, and became more deadly as a result.