Why did it have to wait for the police?

Given the ever-present bias in the media with regard to reporting on any incident involving firearms, it is certain that the recent shooting in Santa Monica will get the usual slanted attention.  It will be little more than another in the long list of reasons we need to ban all firearms.



First, at least most outlets are making it clear that this was not a "school shooting" at all - it was a crime spree that ended when the criminal was killed by LE after retreating into a school library (photo above).

Second, let's be sure we note that this happened in California.  Yes, California, one of the states that has the strictest gun control laws in the nation (and getting stricter all the time).  Let's further note that this follows on recent reports of record numbers of gun-related crimes in Chicago and New York City - two more places where the most draconian of gun laws are in effect.  So, this specific example happened in a gun-free zone in a virtually gun-free state.  What can we take from that?  Do I really need to lay it all out?  Why is it that these instantiations of the general research findings that fewer guns equals more crime are always interpreted in the context of anti-gun bias?  Why is the answer always the next draconian step when the last one did not work?

Further, note that this "rampage" ended when guns were used by good guys; in this case LEOs because, after all, who else in California is carrying a gun on a regular basis?  So, it took a good guy with a gun to end a rampage by a bad guy with a gun.  Damn, where have I heard that saying before?

But what if someone in his path had been armed while the police were still getting themselves on site?  If such crimes end when a good guy (LEO or otherwise) with a gun ends it, then why should this outcome have to wait for the police (and, if the media were willing to report it, it often does not have to wait that long)?  Why did it have to wait in Aurora?  Why in Newtown?  Why in Columbine?  Yes, there are those who will insist that the police are trained for this, that they are somehow uniquely qualified to use a firearms in this situation.  In fact, this is probably not true for the most part and simply reflects the misconception that the police are constantly training with the firearms they carry.  In fact, many may train less frequently than many civilians.  They MAY have other training that is useful and more rare, such as active shooter and team tactics training.  They certainly can bring coordinated strength in numbers to bear.  But recent events have shown that their marksmanship is likely no better than most civilians.

But think of the different times in the different events noted above where a person with a firearm might have ended or at least slowed down or stalled the carnage.  Yes, in this case (and in Aurora) the shooter was apparently wearing body armor (what level and how much, unknown).  Yes, such armor may stop any caliber round that is capable of being carried concealed.  But here again the misconception is that this means there would be no benefit to the presence of an armed good guy in the area with the ability to get rounds on target.  Body armor may prevent penetration, but there is still the force of the round impacting the armor.  The armor is also not likely to be full body, offering either a low-line mobility kill or a head shot (two shots to center mass will get at least some hesitation (see this insane example) and also signal that it is time to shooting either pockets or the head.  In any case, an active shooter taking fire is most likely not going to continue unabated whether due to physical or psychological debilitation.

Let's be clear on one more thing:  carrying a concealed firearm does not make one a LEO.  I am not suggesting that legally-armed law-abiding citizens adopt the role of duty-bound responders and run to danger (that is a personal choice and potentially deadly one for several reasons).  What I am suggesting is that, if innocent citizens going about their daily business are going to find themselves in the path of such madmen, if they are going to be potential victims of them, then allowing them to have a fighting chance to defend themselves and potentially save lives seems to right thing to do.  It MAY well be that this criminal could walk right through all of the rounds of 9 mm I carry and could put on him and take my life.  It IS CERTAIN that he could do so if I were unarmed.

But you will read none of this anywhere in the mainstream media, I am most certain.