I think we need to stop and reflect on this story before the media buries it. A shooter opened fire at Great Mills High School in Maryland but he was cut short by an armed security officer. He managed to injure two people before he was "engaged," according to the sheriff, and quickly neutralized. Of course, two injuries is a terrible thing. But two injuries could have been 17 dead if Great Mills High School was a soft target. And that's why it's so infuriating that gun control radicals want every school to be a soft target and every student to be a sitting duck.
What lesson do we learn here? We learn that up is up and down is down. We learn that rectangles are rectangular. In other words, we learn that self-evident truths are true. It is easier for a gunman to kill a lot of innocent people if nobody is able to return fire. Kids are safer when they are protected. Hiding under a desk is not protection. A security officer armed with a gun (and the willingness and ability to use it) is protection.
The disgusting thing is that some people really do put their political ideology ahead of children's lives. That's not just a reckless accusation. There is no other way to explain a person who wants our kids be defenseless. There is no other way to explain a person who looks at Great Mills High School and still insists that there's no place for guns in schools. A certain segment of our population has so bought into the "all guns are evil" doctrine that they would prefer if guns are only ever used for evil. A gun used to save lives is politically inconvenient, and the politics is all that really matters to them.
I do not feel good leveling such charges. I do not like to think that anyone could be so morally debased as to feel, in some sense, disappointed that lives were saved today. But what other conclusion can we draw? "Let's leave our children vulnerable so that a madman with a gun can easily slaughter them with no interference" is an actual stance that some people have taken. Are we supposed to believe that they care primarily about stopping school shootings when they oppose the one single measure that could most directly prevent, or mitigate, school shootings?
We should force those people to look at this story today and tell us how the situation would have been improved by removing the good guy's gun. Tell us how the kids were more at risk. Tell us how they would have been safer if the shooter had been able to continue firing unimpeded for another seven or eight minutes. Clearly, that's a deranged position. Clearly, there is only one morally defensible position: we should defend our children. With guns. Period.
This is not a political issue. Actual human lives hang in the balance. And many human lives were likely saved today, thanks to a good guy and his gun.