Shooting down ammosexual myths

 I really hate even having to dignify the absurd ammosexual myth that to stop a bad guy with a gun, all you need is a good guy with a gun. This myth comes from watching too much TV and too many movies. That's not reality.

Look, the Buffalo shooter was confronted by an armed guard at the grocery store. The shooter had body armor and the element of surprise, and the bad guy with the gun killed the good guy with the gun.

I'm reading now that the Texas school shooter also had body armor and was confronted by *three* good guys with a gun. The bad guy was able to shoot his way into the school past the three good guys. Can we please drop this phony idea now?

Per Josh Marshall over at TPM (paywalled):

"When you combine high powered rifles and body armor, these guys are close to unstoppable, at least at first. That’s not their only advantage. These shooters have all accepted that they’re likely going to die within minutes. They also, by definition, have the element of surprise. Unless police have a decisive advantage in firepower and defensive equipment, the shooter is always going to have a big advantage in those engagements."

Look, there will never be enough armed "good guys." The problem isn't that we have more mentally ill people than any other industrialized nation on the planet--we don't, so stop blaming mental illness. We need to take the guns off the streets and out of the hands of anyone not actually employed in law enforcement or the military. It works in all the other industrialized nations on the planet, none of which has our track record of mass shootings and suicide.

The NRA is lying. The GOP is lying. The ammosexuals are lying.