Two shootings, two responders

Two shootings, two civilians responded.  The first was successful; the second died in the attempt.

The two found themselves in very different situations.

In the unsuccessful intervention the civilian responder did not know that the primary shooter had an armed accomplice.  In addition to that disadvantage, the shooters appear to have been right-wing nutcases.  They were probably more familiar and better trained with their firearms than a majority of the American police force.

In the successful response, the shooter was wielding a shotgun, which takes longer to reload, and reloading gave the civilian the opportunity to act.  He used the tools at hand and got the job done.  Still, he was fortunate.  The shooter he drew was mentally ill and suffering from delusions, not a well-prepared radical weary of waiting for the revolution.

The odds are that no one of us will be caught up in an act of violence that we cannot escape.  The truth is someone will be.  Not everyone will respond by seeking cover.  They were not born that way.

The question arises, should law abiding citizens who have imagined themselves caught up in violence not of their own and believe themselves to be responders, should they be allowed to arm themselves for the possibility?  Or should we leave them with bottles of pepper spray?  Some states severely restrict even that form of self-defense.

The it will never happen to me, duck, cover, and wait for a white knight in a police uniform crowd would say "no."

A free people who recognize the variety of human experience, that knights come dressed in all colors and few carry a badge, and that trust their fellow citizens say "yes."