About the Recent Rampage Shootings.

in Nebraska and Colorado: While the Brady Bunch will, of course, blame the weapons (I understand a semi-automatic military-style rifle was used in each of the shootings, so the sunset of the "Assault Weapons Ban" that wasn't must be at fault here), these shootings prove one thing conclusively: One thing and one thing only stops a rampage shooter before he has finished - another person with a gun and the willingness to use it in defense of themselves and others.

If what I heard on the radio this afternoon is correct, there were three armed security people at the church in Colorado Springs. Only one willingly engaged the shooter, calmly walking towards him, firing the entire time. Jeanne Assam fired approximately twelve rounds, and took down someone armed with rifle, shotgun, and pistol and who was reportedly wearing body armor. He killed two and wounded two or three more, but he was stopped by someone with a gun.

It's not enough just to have a gun, the defender must be willing and able to use it.

The mantra of the opposition is that there are "too many guns" in the U.S. They also reassure us that they don't really want to ban anything, they just want "common-sense gun controls."

Sorry. Follow the logic. The only thing that can stop rampage shootings is a complete lack of firearms. That means bans. That means confiscation. And, regardless of the Constitutional question, it means disarming the victims first.

Say Uncle has a list of rampage shootings brought short by the presence of people with firearms and the willingness and ability to use them, and says

I like the odds more when good people are armed.

So do I.