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."

Because it is my right

We do not all have the same religious views; we do share a commitment to defend the right for each person to have their own.

We do not all have the same opinions, still we share a commitment to defend freedom of speech.

The rights of the press and the sword are intertwined.

The thing is, we gun owners, do not have to defend why we own a gun to those who choose not to own one.  No more than my Christian wife needs to defend her faith nor do I need to defend my atheism, nor does the Wall Street Journal need to defend its right to publish.

Actually, those things do need to be defended because there are always righteous do-gooders out there of one strip or another who feel threatened by someone else's faith, speech, or willingness to bear arms for the common good.

We can talk about regulation for any and all of those freedoms.  Your right to swing your fist ends in some close vicinity of my nose.  If you attempt to advocate sharia law (Islam), take multiple wives and bill the social welfare system for it (fundamentalist Mormons), if you attempt to foster panic or call for the overthrow of the constitutional order, if misuse your firearm even by brandishing it, all of these will get you in trouble, and rightfully so.  

The truth is, all of our freedoms are intertwined.  The pen is only mightier than the sword when the sword is restrained.  The truth is the only thing that stops a bad guy with a sword is a good guy with a sword.

Those of us who carry firearms need to be vocal to one another about the need for civility and neighborliness.  We should work to reign in our own who need lessons in manners.

Two reasons I am not a member of the NRA: the spend too much money attempting to recruit me as a member and their inability to stand up to the impolite minority among us.

Let's discuss what measures are appropriate, but let's talk in good faith.  Gun owners have not always been treated very respectfully in the public square.  Some public figures have even been willing to break the law in attempts to embarress gun owners.

Because our rights have been defended by the courts, there are political forces that would love to re-write the constitution in order to "fix" the "problem" of the Second Amendment.

That topic is not up for discussion.  

A Free People

will not be controlled.  It is best engage in the positive work of building a society where legislation is limited to those areas where there is broad consensus.  If you can build a 1911 with a 3D printer, you're not far away from printing a fully automatic AR-15.  Either we can live in a tolerant nation where the harmless minority is allowed to live as it wills or we can construct a police state to enforce meddlesome legislation which no one really cares about.  A diverse society which is also an armed society is a libertarian society.