Who is the good guy?

Yeah, I'm tired of the subject. Even so, I've been thinking. In the middle of my long post on gun control, I mentioned the NRA response -- the only response to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. I now see a huge loophole in that claim.

Who decides (and by what criteria) who is the good guy and who isn't?

A few scenarios:

The Trayvon Martin mess (last spring?) was set in motion partly from the Stand Your Ground law in Florida. The law essentially says that if a shooter claims intimidation or felt threatened and fired in self-defense then he can't be prosecuted.

Florida isn't the only state with such a law. There are 23 of them. A recent study showed Stand Your Ground laws increased homicides in those states by about 3%. Pam Spaulding of Pam's House Blend tells the story of a guy who complained about the slow service in a pizza shop. The guy behind suggested he cool it. Tempers flared, a shoving match began, and one guy pulled out a gun and shot the other. With the Stand Your Ground law the shooter can claim he was threatened and escape prosecution for the crazy use a gun over slow service at a pizza shop.

That guy with the gun is theoretically one of the NRA's good guys, a citizen with a concealed weapon ready to take down the bad guy. In this case the "bad guy" didn't have a gun.

Another scenario. This one I heard about, likely on NPR, but I don't have a link. A citizen packs heat in an open meeting of the city council. The guy pulls out the gun, not because there is a bad guy with a gun to take down, but because the discussion on some aspect of city gov't isn't going in this guy's favor. The story is recent, but brings to mind the presence of Tea Party members when congressmen were holding meetings in their home districts back in 2009. Is the guy brandishing the gun a good guy because he is upholding the Constitution (as he sees it) or a bad guy? Though the guy with the gun may not see it this way he is effectively silencing debate and destroying democracy.

Third scenario. First a bit of setting. Today, VP Joe Biden was reporting on his commission to reduce gun violence (others have noted the switch from "gun control" to "gun violence reduction" and hopefully that reframing will sufficiently change the debate). CNN had to interrupt their coverage of the VP to report on another school shooting in Calif. Fortunately, no deaths.

In response to Biden's report, James Yeager, CEO of Tactical Response which specializes in training around weapons and tactics, was mighty upset of the thought of any hint of gun control. And if there is any attempt to pass gun control, in his words:

I’m telling you that if that happens, it’s going to spark a civil war, and I’ll be glad to fire the first shot. I’m not putting up with it. You shouldn’t put up with it. And I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you’re going to do, load your damn mags, make sure your rifle’s clean, pack a backpack with some food in it and get ready to fight.

Good guy? If not, what man on the street good guy is going to take him on? Perhaps we should instead administer a mental health test.

While we're considering gun laws, let's also look at the issues of militarism, bullying, and mental health then start balancing rights and responsibility along with individual and community, while stressing cooperation and nonviolent resolutions.