I try not to overly politicize tragedies just for the sake of “making a point” or “pushing an agenda (as some folks frequently do), but if there’s a valid, rational point to be made — I have no problem making it. I wanted to wait a couple of days before writing this to let everyone have some time to process what happened on Thursday night in Dallas, Texas.
As I sat back on Friday, watching the usual “blame game” go back and forth between the left and the right, I couldn’t help but notice something was missing — the usual pro-gun “macho” propaganda that often goes along with most of these mass shootings.
Maybe I’m simply not remembering things correctly, but don’t gun fanatics typically claim that the reason why mass shootings (and even terrorist attacks) happen is because “gun free zones” prevent “good guys with guns” from being able to take out the “bad guys”?
Yeah, I’m fairly certain that’s what they usually say.
Heck, here’s what Donald Trump had to say following the terrorist attack in Paris:
When you look at Paris — you know the toughest gun laws in the world, Paris — nobody had guns but the bad guys. Nobody had guns. Nobody. They were just shooting them one by one and then they (security forces) broke in and had a big shootout and ultimately killed the terrorists. You can say what you want, but if they had guns, if our people had guns, if they were allowed to carry — it would’ve been a much, much different situation.
And here’s what he said after the San Bernardino shooting:
I think it would’ve been a lot better if they had guns in that room, somebody could protect. They could’ve protected themselves if they had guns.
Then this is what the presumptive GOP presidential nominee said after the Orlando nightclub massacre:
If you had some guns in that club the night that this took place, if you had guns on the other side, you wouldn’t have had the tragedy that you had. If people in that room had guns with the bullets flying in the opposite direction right at him… right at his head, you wouldn’t have had the same tragedy that you ended up having.
I can’t help but notice that there’s definitely a common theme of “if they had guns…” in each and every one of those statements. All Trump’s doing is parroting rhetoric Republicans, the NRA and gun fanatics have been using for years. You know, the whole “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun” idiocy.
Well, on Thursday night in Dallas, where the shooting took place wasn’t a “gun free zone.” Not only that, but in Texas, it’s completely legal to openly carry your gun(s) with you almost anywhere you go. Heck, there were people openly carrying guns with them at the protest.
Before I go forward, just think about that for a moment: Technically, the animal who killed five police officers, while wounding six others, could have literally been marching around and stalking his eventual victims while openly carrying the very same high-powered assault rifle he would later use to carry out his attack and there’s nothing they could have done about it because, at that point, he was just a “good guy with a gun exercising his Second Amendment rights.”
Furthermore, I think it’s important to point out the real “elephant in the room.” On Thursday night, there were over 100 police officers at that protest — which means there were more than 100 guns where the shooting took place. Yet, that didn’t stop a madman from killing five, and wounding six others, in an assassination-type ambush.
So, were there not enough “good guys” with guns at the scene of this massacre to prevent it?
Based on his comments, it’s clear that if you ask someone like Donald Trump (or most every other gun fanatic), he believes that the attacks in Paris, San Bernandino and Orlando (as well as many other mass shootings) mainly happened because there weren’t “good guys with guns” there to stop the “bad guy.”
Even when it comes to mass shootings at schools, gun fanatics typically say we need police officers at every single one to protect the children, right? So, wait, do we need more than 100 cops at every single one of our nation’s schools? After all, there were 100 police officers there on Thursday night and one prepared gunman managed to be extremely effective at killing innocent people in a fairly short amount of time. So, if 100 armed and trained police officers weren’t enough of a deterrent to dissuade the Dallas shooter from carrying out his murderous plot — then what are one or two going to do?
I have another question: Since we had around 100 police officers with over 100 guns on the scene of Thursday night’s shooting — just how many more members of law enforcement, firearms and other “good guys with guns” would we have needed to be there to prevent what happened?
200? 300? 1,000?
Or, maybe — just maybe, what was proven Thursday night is that, instead of this nonsense about “good guys being the only thing that stops bad guys” we learned what we need to be doing is making damn sure the “bad guys” don’t get their hands on guns. Dallas showed us that, even with 100 police officers and more than 100 guns on scene, one “bad guy” was able to effectively murder five innocent people and wound six others, not because there weren’t any “good guys with guns,” but because our laws make it too damn easy for “bad guys” to get them.
Image via “The Good, the Chad, & the Ugly” on Facebook.
Latest posts by Allen Clifton (see all)
- Out Of Everything Maddening About Trump’s Presidency, This is What Frustrates Me the Most - February 23, 2018
- The One Question That Left My Gun-Loving NRA Friend Completely Speechless - February 22, 2018
- Arming Teachers is One of the Dumbest Ideas in the History of Dumb Ideas - February 22, 2018