No. You are beyond wrong. Personal firearm ownership is a constitutionally protected right, just as protection from unreasonable search (as this was). Arming oneself when someone breaks into your house is beyond reasonable. Police should expect residents to be armed and shouldn't be breaking into residences.

And please, stop blaming the victim.

▲

utternerd 5 hours ago | parent [-]

It is factually accurate that he pulled out a weapon when police were responding to an active shooter call.

▲

happytoexplain 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Nobody is calling your facts wrong. They are criticizing your post. You wrote as if criticizing the victim for their decision to pull a gun. If you did not mean to do that, you should simply state that. If you did mean to do that, then you are ignoring what people are saying in favor of pretending they are denying the simple facts of your post. You are being evasive in both cases - whichever it is.

▲

hamper653 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why are there so many guns in this God-forsaken country? Why did local cops respond to an active shooting call? Why did they enter the house, instead of waiting for a specially trained team? Why did the victim have a gun?

▲

krapp 4 hours ago | parent [-]

>Why are there so many guns in this God-forsaken country?

Surplus arms after World War 2 led to the creation of the gun industry in the US, and thanks to the Second Amendment and the power of the gun lobby, its relationship with the Republican Party, and decades of popular media making them cool, that's a guaranteed untouchable industry.

> Why did they enter the house, instead of waiting for a specially trained team?

What "specially trained team?" That was the specially trained team. They're specially trained to break down doors and shoot people.

Americans get the policing they vote for, and they consistently vote for tacticool cowboys with Punisher tattoos and against... anything less than more of that.

There is probably a relationship between this and the first question.

>Why did the victim have a gun?

Self defense, presumably, as is his Constitutional right.

▲

hamper653 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> What "specially trained team?" That was the specially trained team.

Weren’t they some local cops? In my country there is a handful of police teams specialised in hostage situations and the like. In case of an "active shooting", local cops would typically establish a perimeter until these guys come and handle the situation (without deaths if possible, although they are sharp shooters).

	▲	krapp 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		OK I assumed it was a SWAT team, I didn't read the article closely enough, my fault. I'll take the hit for that. But if it had been... the result still would have been the same. American police aren't trained to de-escalate, SWAT less so.

▲

exabrial 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Which also, is literally not a crime. Don't blame the victim.

	▲	tzs 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Which also, is literally not a crime I believe that the person you are responding to is arguing wisdom, not legality.