But imagining that he had the ability to do that, with no training, as a part of no organization (not even some ad hoc militia) means that he was nothing more than vigilante who was ill equipped to do anything but exactly the kind of thing that he did - cause more trouble and needless death. He did not actually contribute anything to the safety of anyone or anything - not even himself. And glorifying that as a necessary and honorable "American" thing to do that others should emulate is dangerous. Because when you leave your home armed with a weapon that you really have no business brandishing about to insert yourself into a situation that doesn't involve you directly, "self defense" kind of goes out the window. Don't get me wrong, I agree that the jury upheld the current laws, but that doesn't mean that the laws are good, or that they don't contribute more to bloodshed than they do to actual safety.
The whole "good guy with a gun" narrative is a dangerous myth that should not be encouraged or glorified.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/i-m-army-veteran-gun-owner-good-guy-gun-theory-ncna821976
"The problem with this narrative (besides a lack of research or data suggesting more guns does indeed prevent violence broadly) is that killing another human being, even a “bad” one, is not easy. This is not “Call of Duty”: Despite the damage that modern weaponry can inflict, there is a reason that soldiers and law enforcement officers receive thousands of hours of training in firearms and tactics. This training is physical, mechanical and, most importantly, psychological, because in order to efficiently and effectively kill other human beings in high-stress situations, one must be conditioned to negotiate that stress.
When I see a young man openly carrying a firearm in public, whether to prove a political point or because he honestly believes at he could be called upon to stop an active shooter, I can only think of how much could go wrong. I do not see a “good guy with a gun”: I see a naive human who is more likely to exacerbate a tragedy than stop it. Is this person a civilian who has forgot to clear their weapon? Are they disciplined enough to avoid accidents? And if a mass shooting does occur, how do I know they will have the skills to take out the bad guy rather than, say, an innocent bystander?
I am a gun owner, a military veteran and a proud American. I believe in the essential right to bear arms, but with that right comes the obligation of responsible ownership. If a young man is brazen enough to brandish a powerful weapon just to attract attention, why would I trust they have the maturity to use it responsibly?"
There is simply no chance that a seventeen year old on his own armed with a high powered weapon is an asset to the situation and is going to help to make it better.
