Share This Article with a Friend!

Assault on America, Day 223: Americans buying guns is the rational response to mass shootings

Trump Visits El Paso
As liberal establishment politicians and the media continue their substance-free blubbering and pontificating over how to officially address the recent wave of mass shootings, American citizens are taking it upon themselves to do what they’ve always done when confronted with common sense conundrums of personal safety and prudent risk prevention -- they’re arming themselves.

Gun sales are going through the roof -- and the weapons people are selecting are those one can strap on as routinely as picking up car keys or grabbing a coat on the way to work in the morning. Paul Bedard reported at the Washington Examiner, “Gun sales are surging after the weekend mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, fueled by first-time buyers seeking pistols they can carry with them for protection. The latest jump validated a big increase in purchases and background checks recorded by the FBI that show the four most recent months higher than the same months in 2018...

“’While we have seen a measured rise in sale of certain tactical rifles and accessories this week, most customers are looking for concealed carry handguns,” [said Hyatt Guns (Charlotte, N.C.) Marketing Director Justin Anderson].

“’Just this week we have fielded hundreds of calls from people that have never purchased a gun before. Our concealed carry training classes are filling up quickly. People are realizing that even a trip to Walmart isn’t safe these days and they want to be able to protect themselves. Remember that nothing stops a lunatic bent on carnage better than a law-abiding citizen with a gun. I continue to urge people to get a gun, get trained with that gun, and carry, always,’ he added.”

Sounds like paradise, doesn’t it? Freedom loving, Second Amendment revering Americans could only dream about a responsible, background-check passing citizen population packing heat and proudly carrying their concealed weapons with them everywhere they journey. If the political class would only go along with the notion, firearms would be as ubiquitous as smart phones -- and those clandestine wackos in society would definitely think twice (or maybe multiple more times) before attempting to leave this life in a blaze of terror.

They realize -- “only” reaching a small number of victims or being stopped completely by an armed defender wouldn’t get a kook mentioned in sensation-seeking establishment news media outlets. No fame, no immortality -- and no manifesto mentions. Would it prevent attacks before they happen? Who knows… but we should talk about it, shouldn’t we?

(Note: Here’s an example of one potential would-be mass murderer (at a Walmart, no less) who was stopped by an off-duty firefighter with a gun).

Of course this universal armed concept is absolutely horrifying to Democrats and liberals who depend on ill-defined “gun violence” to prop up their flimsy political platforms. There’s an inherent distrust of ordinary citizens protecting themselves in moments of urgency among this group. And it’s always best for these controlling ninnies to spread the falsehood that people bearing personal firearms are much more of a potential threat than leaving victims exposed in “gun free zones” (which are little more than open invitations for criminals to “kill fast and unhindered until the police arrive”).

Whenever the subject comes up liberals invariably cite “accidental” deaths from kids playing with guns left carelessly or ignorantly on the kitchen table. Nobody with half a brain would be so lax, but “accidents” happen with other dangerous instruments as well (lawnmowers, power tools, kitchen utensils, etc.). Should we deny everyone the right to buy a gun because of statistical aberrations?

Question for the gun-hating reactionary liberals who think firearms are the real problem: If owning and possessing personal weapons is supposedly so dangerous, why aren’t any of these gun related mass killings carried out by people with concealed carry permits? And what about the rampages from deranged murderers who choose other types of lethal force (knives, vehicles, etc.)? Just last week there was a prolonged spree in California where a man killed four and wounded several others with a machete-like knife.

All the victims were Hispanic, as was the perpetrator himself. The only reason to highlight the ethnic background here is to put to rest the “white nationalist” suspicions before they even surface. Such is the way it is in today’s ultra-race obsessed media culture.

Besides, what’s wrong with the notion of arming everyone? Any contemporary elected official who recommended such a bold scheme would be laughed out of the room, yet it’s (fairly) common knowledge that pre-revolutionary American men were required to own a musket and enough powder and shot to defend their homes and families against Indian attacks. And service in the local militia was often perfunctory as well. Today we call it the National Guard. Back then, the militia.

Of course, attitudes towards guns were much different in those days. Muskets and shotguns were thought of as essential implements for food gathering purposes as well as other means. And it’s no coincidence that the constitutional amendment covering personal firearms is second only to the ultimate freedoms (in the First Amendment) of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition. Self-defense was considered an honor and duty back then, whereas today’s liberals would value-shame people for even desiring to purchase a gun.

Properly handled, guns are as safe as anything else. Observing a few basic do’s and don’ts is all anyone needs to be a trustworthy owner. Most people who own guns probably don’t even give them a second thought except when it’s time to go to the practice range or out hunting. How often do outdoors enthusiasts really think about their crossbows?  

One thing’s for certain -- if inner city residents were required to possess means to protect themselves there’d be a lot fewer homicides and a lot more scared would-be criminals who wouldn’t be so eager to commit crimes if they figured there might be a bullet waiting for them around the next corner. Such a point is debatable, of course, but current statistics show America’s urban centers -- like Baltimore and Chicago -- have the highest instances of gun crimes anywhere. And it’s not like the shooters buy the arms legally, take a course to learn how to operate them conscientiously and then follow through with the background check/permit process.

It's undeniable -- the fewer legal guns there are in a location the higher the body count from shootings, mass or otherwise. Americans hear about multiple-death tragedies like El Paso and Dayton because such occurrences are rare, whereas the media doesn’t bother reporting how many people are shot every week in the country’s most crime ravaged cities. The victims are anonymous and forgotten by everyone except Democrats using them to advance emotional appeals.

Why? Inner city killings are like white noise -- it’s all the same before it hits the airwaves/internet. Democrat presidential candidates were asked about guns during their debates, but they only used the subject as another excuse to bash President Trump and Republicans because these leaders don’t robotically buy into the liberals’ hysteric nonsense over gun confiscation.

(Note: To be fair, Democrat Montana Gov. Steve Bullock recently defended the right to bear arms, though he’s okay with banning “assault rifles”.)

Think about it. The National Rifle Association (among others) is one of the most controversial organizations in the country simply for representing and shielding a precious constitutional right. Liberals love Planned Parenthood, but they always (at least until recently) hide the fact the abortion provider is primarily focused on its baby killing mission (which is purportedly the “constitutional right” at hand). Why aren’t they proud of “protecting rights” like national gun organizations are?

If guns have a bad reputation it’s because they’re assigned one by people who don’t know anything about them -- other than they’re dangerous in the wrong hands. It’s not all that different than the knock on President Donald Trump -- that he’s not a healing presence. Testimonials from last week’s presidential visit to El Paso weren’t what media liberals expected concerning the supposedly coarse and brash president.

Rob Crilly reported at The Washington Examiner, “President Trump offered a gentler version of his presidency to survivors of the El Paso shooting during his visit to the Texas city, according to a baseball coach who heroically raced to the scene to save lives.

“’One of the children went up to hug him so he got down on one knee to let him,’ said Jimmy Villatoro, who described meeting the president at the city’s University Medical Center, where many of the wounded were treated… Villatoro said [Trump’s] personal touch away from the cameras was far from divisive and was welcomed by the people he met. There were no politics behind closed doors, he added.

“’He made sure my family was OK, asking after my wife and son,’ he said. ‘We met him face to face, and he and Melania were amazing, checking we were okay, offering any kind of help, if we needed someone to talk to. We told him that Democrats, Republicans, we were all united in this city.’”

The protesters outside the hospital weren’t as “united,” but there are naysayers in every crowd. The people inside were grateful for Trump’s kindness and the comfort he provided to people like Villatoro (who rushed to the scene and helped numerous people to safety before the gunman was captured).

Trump could be the “figurehead” president everyone thinks he should be if given the chance. He doesn’t get insulted if you disagree with one of his policy positions; it’s only when someone attacks his character that he (sometimes) overreacts.

Americans aren’t stupid; they see what’s happening in the country and can be trusted to take rational approaches to complex problems -- like purchasing a firearm for personal protection. The political class always jumps to conclusions, and often times they’re the wrong ones for the wrong reasons.

Share this