What happened Friday at Santa Fe High School is horrible. With 10 people dead and another 10 wounded, it’s an absolute tragedy. Without school resource officers acting as they did, with one of them among the wounded, it could have been much worse, possibly worse than Parkland.

However, another tragedy reared up in the aftermath. That tragedy was USA Today‘s take over the fact that the killer didn’t use an AR-15.

Two details set the Santa Fe shooting apart from other recent deadly attacks: explosives and the use of less-lethal weapons. https://t.co/F0rJZQydMa

— USA TODAY (@USATODAY) May 18, 2018

The opening of this…article:

The attack at a Texas high school Friday echoed the all-too-familiar horrors Americans are accustomed to seeing on the news. But two details set it apart from the list of other recent deadly attacks: explosives and the less-lethal weapons used.

Now, keep in mind that the term “less-lethal weapons” actually has a definition. They include things like pepper spray, tasers, and beanbag shotgun rounds.

None of those were used by the killer in Santa Fe. No, he used a shotgun and a .38 revolver. Those are very lethal weapons. Shotguns and .38 revolvers have accounted for quite a few people being very dead through the years. The Remington 870 is an extremely common shotgun and is used by numerous law enforcement agencies and the United States Armed Forces. It’s also used by numerous other militaries throughout the world.

If it wasn’t lethal, I doubt these folks would be using it. In fact, the use by so many militaries could easily make this one a “weapon of war.” In fact, the term is more applicable for the Remington 870 because it’s virtually identical in functionality to those sold to the military. It’s more applicable to the 870 than it is the AR-15, truth be told.

But because it wasn’t an AR-15, it’s somehow better.

The fact is, in the hands of someone who knows how to use it, the shotgun is a very versatile and deadly weapon, especially within the confines of a building like a school. It could be argued that it’s even more deadly in such circumstances than an AR-15.

As for the .38, the only real downside to a revolver is round capacity. There’s absolutely no argument to be made about revolvers being less powerful, less deadly, than a semi-automatic pistol. The .38 round is in roughly the same ballpark power-wise with the 9mm round. Only a complete fool (or USA Today reporter, but I repeat myself) would consider it somehow less lethal.

While folks like me regularly recommend against revolvers, it’s not because of the round. It’s the capacity. After six shots, you have to reload. That’s it.

What this really boils down to is that these weapons, especially used in such a deadly attack, don’t conform to the narrative. They shatter it. They prove that literally every anti-gun measure being pushed post-Parkland would do nothing to actually stop these attacks. This also shows that would do little to nothing to even minimize the casualties.

The one thing that did minimize casualties was school resource officers who engaged the shooter, injured him, and convinced him to surrender before there was further bloodshed.

In other words, it was a good guy with a gun.

And their guns were just as lethal.