In a situation where the "he" is a criminal intent upon doing something violent, it has a very negative connotation. It is a warning cry. It is an exclamation of distress.
In a situation where help is needed, and somebody able to help has a gun, it is a phrase of hope.
In a situation where somebody is wondering who happens to have a gun nearby, simply out of curiosity, it is an indifferent answer to a request for information.
The simple act of "having a gun" is sometimes misconstrued to be an act of (or at least precursor) to violence. At some point, society has let itself be programmed to think of guns as evil. While not all have this opinion, there is significant evidence that large demographics have come to view guns as evil.
This change has caused many to fear guns. Of course there are many houses with guns behind the door. In point of fact, I see them all the time. Some would say that I have become desensitized to their evil simply because I see them so frequently. However, that is the contrary argument in that it is based on guns actually being evil. We are actually seeing people being desensitized to the usefulness of guns.
Nightly, we are faced with television programming (an apt word actually) where guns are either horribly evil devices OR they are salvation when in the hands of government employees. I find it interesting that we are willingly subjecting ourselves to reeducation about guns. How can we seriously allow ourselves to be trained to think that guns are bad when citizens have them, but somehow good when a random third party with three letters on their jacket has them?
There is no gun training available that makes their use sacred when controlled by the government and evil when controlled by the individual. The best ATF/FBI/DHS agent in the world is still "following orders" from a third party. By programming people to think that only the government can be trusted with guns, we are abdicating their use to the oversight of an often unnamed bureaucrat of which we should have no trust.
Posts
