Newscasts, newspapers and social media have not reported about the latest potential massacre in a school in Maryland, where dozens of students could have been killed and injured by the usual “deranged gunman”. Nobody showed us the touching images of mothers and students in tears, not even how happy they were that no one of their families died. But also nobody really took notice that at the end of this incident one person died: the aggressor!
Media didn’t report about the Maryland incident and no debate about “gun control” was sparked, simply because that potential massacre did not happen! We’ll tell you why:
The massacre did not happen because there was an armed school resource officer - “the good guy with a gun” - that stopped the potential killer – “the bad guy with a gun” - before the latter could produce a bloodbath of innocents. When on March 20, 2018, a seventeen-year-old boy entered the Great Mills High School with a gun in Maryland (USA) he only had time to wound two of his classmates. Then an armed school resource officer pursued the shooter and engaged him.
The shooting ended with the death of the wannabe mass-murderer only. That’s another tragic story, undoubtedly. But not a massacre.
Let’s go to the analysis:
this is very different outcome compared to Parkland, Florida, where only a month ago a 19-year-old gunman hunted down students and teachers killing seventeen people and wounding many more. We already reported it here: "Gun control and questions to be asked after Parkland".
Given two similar scenarios, logic should look for the factors that have determined two so different outcomes. What made the difference is the fact that in the Maryland school they had hired a viable defense in the form of an armed staff member. On the contrary, in the Parkland school building no one was arme - except the gunman. Even the sheriff deputies did not intervene and stayed idling outside the school.
A perfect laboratory experiment
Like in a perfect laboratory experiment, through these two equal and opposite cases we can see what is the only variable, that prevents a massacre: a gun in the right hands. As the most elementary common sense suggests, law-abiding armed citizens can immediately stop a killing rampage well before lives are destroyed. This is true not only in schools, but also in cinemas, theaters and streets. Or churches: last November at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, the gunman who had just slaughtered 26 people was stopped by a citizen and his legally-owned rifle. On the other hand, it should not be difficult to understand that to protect people from blood-thirsty wolves - be they lunatics, terrorists or vicious criminals - the best solution is not to turn the whole society into a flock of sheep. But when it comes to firearms, logic seems to succumb to ideological hysteria and political agendas.
“Unfortunately”, since no massacre has been accomplished, the Maryland school news will soon be forgotten. There will be no debate and no activists or movie stars leading the charge for less gun restrictions for law-abiding citizens. And after the next massacre in another “gun-free zone” there will always be those who loudly demand more “gun control”. That is, disarming the “good guys” by law.
Yes, guns in the right hands can save lives. And again yes, we have to think about more security provided by armed authorities. But please let’s not forget about the real reasons for all these school massacres: not guns are killing people, but people are killing people. And a third yes, also with guns. But madmen and terrorists are also using knives, cars and trucks. That’s why we can only call upon our political leaders in all the world to start activities against all the social problems that lead to situations where someone in the mid of our social environment or at the egde of the society is going crazy and starts to kill people. That’s the real problem and we all can be sure, gun bans are not the “miracle cure” that can help to avoid future attacks.