Did the guardsman who died in DC carry a gun

1. What reporters agree on: an ambush, a revolver, and at least one return shot

News organizations uniformly describe the incident as an “ambush-style” attack in which a lone suspect opened fire at two deployed West Virginia National Guard members near Farragut West, two blocks from the White House ^{[1] [5]}. Authorities identified the handgun used as a .357 Smith & Wesson/.357 Magnum revolver (Jeanine Pirro and reporting compiled by Reuters and others) ^{[6] [2] [3]}. Multiple outlets state that at least one of the guard members engaged the shooter and there was an exchange of fire ^{[1] [4]}.

2. Where the accounts diverge: who fired and whether the deceased carried a weapon

Some reports carefully say “at least one guard exchanged gunfire” without directly tying that action to the guard who later died; AP explicitly noted it was “not clear whether one of the guard members or a law enforcement officer shot the suspect” ^[1]. PBS News describes that “at least one Guard member exchanged gunfire with the shooter,” again without specifying which of the two wounded guards did so ^[4]. Reuters likewise reports the suspect was shot in an exchange of fire with troops, but does not name the individual^[7] who fired the rounds that wounded the suspect ^[2]. In short, contemporary reporting confirms a return of fire but does not consistently identify whether the deceased guardsman personally carried or fired a weapon ^{[1] [4] [2]}.

3. Official statements and investigative caution

U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro and law-enforcement spokespeople described the scene as an ambush and discussed the weapon the assailant brought; their briefings focused on the suspect’s firearm and motive investigations, not on a detailed public identification of which guard fired which shots ^{[6] [1]}. News outlets quote officials who emphasize that investigations were ongoing and that specifics about who fired were still being determined, which is why published accounts vary in detail and certainty ^{[1] [8]}.

4. Why the question matters politically and legally

Whether a deployed guardsman carried and fired a weapon shapes public understanding of the incident’s dynamics (defensive return fire versus single-sided ambush) and can affect legal and prosecutorial narratives about self-defense, rules of engagement, and subsequent charges. Some outlets note the incident quickly became a political flashpoint, with discussions about immigration and asylum arising in the wake of the attack—this context amplifies why precise facts about the guardsmen’s actions are politically salient ^{[2] [9]}.

5. What the sources do not say (limits of current reporting)

Available sources do not consistently state that the specific guard who died was armed at the moment of the attack or that she personally fired on the suspect; reporting alternates between saying “one guard exchanged gunfire” and leaving open which individual returned fire ^{[1] [4]}. Detailed ballistic or after-action accounts identifying who discharged weapon^[7] and who struck the suspect are not present in the cited reporting ^{[1] [2] [8]}.

6. How to interpret evolving reports — and what to watch for next

Given the investigative posture described by AP, Reuters and other outlets, expect official forensic and departmental after-action reports to clarify whether the deceased or the surviving guardsman fired, whether any law-enforcement personnel shot the suspect, and the sequence of wounds and shots ^{[1] [2]}. Follow-up articles that cite forensic evidence, police statements, or court filings will be the most reliable places to confirm whether the deceased carried and fired a weapon ^[8].

Summary takeaway: multiple outlets confirm an exchange of gunfire and that the attacker used a .357 revolver, but current mainstream reporting cited here does not definitively state that the guardsman who died personally carried or fired a weapon; some reports expressly note that who fired remains unclear pending further investigation ^{[3] [1] [4]}.