I had planned for this week’s column to examine on-the-body carry solutions for women, obviously a subject of interest to many who visit womensholsters.com. Unfortunately, events transpired which forced me to delay that piece. Once again, a deranged individual took advantage of a “Gun-Free Zone” to hunt for unarmed victims, this time at a small community college in Roseburg, Oregon. And once again, liberal educators, administrators, and legislators conspired to disarm those good people who sought only to educate themselves and work to better their lives. They repeatedly ignore the fact that those intent on committing violence are not likely to be deterred by signs declaring that guns are unwelcome. Once again, innocent people died needlessly, this time for the ‘crime’ of being Christian, and having the courage of their convictions, for refusing to deny Christ. And once again, President Obama took to the airwaves, before the blood had dried on the floor of the science classroom at Umpqua Community College, in order to denounce gun owners, advocates of individual liberty, the National Rifle Association—anyone. In fact, he blamed anyone other than the person who actually committed the crime of murdering nine and wounding nine others, before taking his own life. Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin has declined to mention the name of the shooter, in order to deny him the notoriety such individuals often crave, and we will honor that here.
In fact, President Obama referred to the shooter only once, saying that, “We don’t yet know why this individual did what he did. And it’s fair to say that anybody who does this has a sickness in their mind, regardless of what they think their motivations may be.” He then launched into a ten-minute long tirade attacking anyone who opposes so-called “common sense” gun laws, claiming, in an outright lie, that jurisdictions with the most restrictive gun laws have the lowest rates of gun violence. Clearly, Mr. President, you haven’t looked in on your hometown of Chicago lately. So far this year, 2,300 people have been shot in the Second City, 1,600 fatally (not all homicides certainly; the majority of shooting deaths each year, by a significant margin, are suicides). Only Washington D.C. has more restrictive gun laws, and they currently stand at 119 homicides for 2015, with only a quarter of Chicago’s population.
So why does Obama fail so miserably to grasp the true cause of shootings such as the one that occurred on the 1st of October? Why does he refuse, even to the point of falsehood, to acknowledge the cold, undeniable fact that guns in the hands of good people save lives? Why does he only act to prevent honest individuals from possessing the means to defend themselves and allow them to be made into sacrificial lambs?
Contrary to the opinions of the President, as well as the father of the shooter, who is understandably grief-stricken, guns did not cause the rampage at Umpqua. No firearm, through some unknown sorcery, bewitched the shooter into unleashing his apparent hatred for Christians Thursday afternoon, an aspect of the crime that liberals are choosing to ignore. His own nature caused him to commit murder; not once or twice, but nine times, with premeditation, planning, and preparation. One by one, he had his victims stand, as he asked them if they were Christian. Those who answered in the affirmative were killed; the others were only wounded. One brave man, a veteran of the US Army named Chris Mintz, challenged the gunman and was shot seven times, surviving his wounds. Shouldn’t this courageous combat vet have had the option of being armed, no matter where he was? How much better would it have been had someone … anyone, other than the gunman, been armed?
In his statement, Obama said more guns are not the answer. For once, I agree with him. More guns alone mean nothing, unless we can do away with the liberal fallacy that posting a few signs and declaring a location a “Gun-Free Zone” does anything more than disarming those willing to obey such a ridiculous prohibition. More guns aren’t the answer, unless those guns are in the possession of good people, and not just at home. It’s time our ‘leaders’ learned to respect the “… bear” part of the Second Amendment. Guns serve no useful purpose at home in a drawer or locked in a car!
You can’t legislate evil intent out of the human mind. All the gun laws ever written have failed to do anything more than inhibit those willing to obey them. No laws, either currently on the books or proposed, would have prevented the slaughter in Roseburg. Every gun used by the killer was legally acquired. He arrived at the school fully intent on committing murder; he wasn’t going to be stopped by a few signs. Only one thing would’ve stopped him from killing others, and that’s if someone in the crowd of targets had had the ability to kill him first.
Comments will be approved before showing up.