A free, armed populace will occasionally result in the demise of innocents, accidental shootings and convenient excuses for bad people to do bad things.
Misunderstood malcontents (like St. Louis) may , from time to time, be killed, justly or unjustly, in a society where the people are allowed their God given right to keep and bear arms.
When everyone is strapped, you have to prepare for war in every situation.
The peacemakers have to do what is necessary to keep the peace, and there are bad apples among them, but faced with a free, gun toting public one must err on the side of violence. Every situation must be dealt with as a worst case scenario from the outset.
Sometimes that gets a man killed.
Many times it gets a cop killed.
Sometimes it leads to civil unrest, however, it is an unfortunate bi-product of freedom.
Across the pond, where the general public is largely unarmed (and so are the police) we find mankind at it’s worst. Evil maniacs finding ways to execute their evil agenda, usually without guns.
Bombs, knives, cars and yes, they still get their hands on guns, criminals always will.
It begs the question.
Who is safer?
An armed society that occasionally has to grieve a single tragic loss at the hands of aggressive law enforcement or an unarmed society left defenseless; at the mercy of psychopaths who feel free to move unchecked among the masses, striking, injuring and killing dozens (or hundreds) of targets at once?
The math isn’t that hard.
It was rightly stated, “Give me Liberty or give me death” for, without one, the other is inevitable.