There were a couple more mass shootings in the last week or so, and I’m noticing a trend.
In all but two cases, the shootings ended when the killer ran out of victims and took their own life.
In one of those exceptions (the strip mall), the killer remains at large.
In the other, the killer was stopped by an armed civilian, a volunteer (as in “not a professional security officer or off-duty cop or other state-sanctioned agent”) who wounded the killer — who took his own life.
In the city hall shooting, there was an armed police officer on the scene. He was the first shot.
In all but one case, the shootings took place in “gun free zones.”
The sole exception was, of course, the church where volunteer security officer Jeanne Assam confronted the shooter and gunned him down with her own privately-owned weapon.
Am I arguing that “gun-free zones” are inherently dangerous, and often act as lures to would-be killers as places where they can freely kill without fear that their would-be victims can shoot back?
I don’t need to make that argument.
Res ipsa loquitur — “the thing speaks for itself.”