It Takes a Good Guy with a Gun: Part 2

There are a lot of commonly held ideas perpetuated by the gun lobby, the NRA, and within my industry as a whole that I fundamentally disagree with. Among those are NOT the idea that it takes a good guy with a gun, that guns save lives, and that lawful gun owners can be part of the solution. It falls in line with the saying “No guns, know crime. Know guns, no crime”. I am not proposing that MORE guns are the solution, but I am proposing that trained gun owners can (and clearly do) save lives.

Case in point: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ambushed-arizona-trooper-saved-passing-motorist-who-shot-attacker-dead-n706381

A state trooper responding to a call was ambushed, shot, and continuously attacked by a man who likely would have killed him. Instead two passers by stopped, pulled out their firearm, shot the suspect, rendered aid to the trooper, and used his radio to call for assistance. These men saved the trooper’s life. They used a firearm to do it. They could not have faught this attacker with any other force, due to the fact that he was armed with a gun (meaning they couldn’t wrestle it from his hands, hit him with a bat, or pepper spray him). In plainest terms- it took these good guys with a gun, and that gun saved the life of a law enforcement officer.

This is one of many examples we rarely see in the news, as we are so focused on sensationalizing the politics and emotions surrounding the gun “debate” and not so much the facts. Does it mean we do not need background checks, proficiency tests, a registry, or that other sensible gun control measures should not be part of the larger conversation? No. Does it mean that good guys with guns can save lives? Yes. We can, we do, and examples like this one need to be included as part of the conversation- AND- I would suggest as part of the solution.