Of all the various groups of people I deal with on any number of politically related topics, without a doubt, gun nuts are some of the most irrational, paranoid, lacking of common sense, and ignorant I encounter. The folks who legitimately think that guns have nothing to do with gun violence, or that “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.”
You know, folks who like to say a bunch of nonsense that doesn’t make a damn bit of sense.
Well, in the wake of the recent terrorist attack in London, Donald Trump sent a tweet out that clearly implied if the people there had guns, that this attack could have been prevented:
Do you notice we are not having a gun debate right now? That's because they used knives and a truck!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 4, 2017
Naturally, this helped ignite the usual “debate” that takes place in this country whenever some act of violence is carried out in a nation with much stricter laws and regulations on gun ownership than we have here in the United States. And as it always does, this ‘debate” brings out people, like Trump, who say really stupid things that seem as if they were said by people who aren’t living in any known realm of reality.
For starters, besides not making any sense, Trump’s tweet in and of itself is disgusting and tasteless. However, the moronic sentiment behind what he tweeted is believed by millions of gun nuts who actually blame the lack of guns on these attacks.
Let’s just look at this logically, shall we? The reason why these monsters had to resort to using knives and trucks is because strict gun laws kept them from being able to easily obtain high-powered assault weapons.
Imagine how many people could have been killed had even one of these animals had an AK-47 with a 100-round magazine. Do gun nuts really think that knives and trucks are the preferred weapon for these psychopaths?
They are forced to carry out these attacks with these far less lethal tools and weapons because the strict laws in these other countries prevent them from being able to easily obtain guns that would make it much easier for them to kill far more people.
And that’s not even subjective, either — we have indisputable proof from right here in the United States. Here are a few high-profile mass shooting massacres, and the number of victims, that have taken place over the last couple of years:
- Fort Hood: 13 dead.
- San Bernardino: 14 dead.
- Orlando nightclub: 49 dead, 59 wounded.
- Charleston church: 9 dead.
- Sandy Hook: 27 dead, including 20 children aged 7 and under.
- Aurora movie theater: 12 dead, 58 wounded.
- Dallas police: 5 dead, 11 wounded.
And in a country that literally has tens of millions of guns, guess how many of those murderers were taken down by an ordinary citizen “good guy with a gun”?
And those are just a few of the more well-known mass shootings over the last few years.
I’m not here to say that some life is more important than another, or that what happened in London is any less tragic than another attack where more people lost their lives because, no matter the number of victims, they’re all tragic. But it’s indisputable that, in a country like the United States where these monsters have a much easier time obtaining guns, they often claim far more victims than in countries where it’s much more difficult to obtain a firearm, forcing them to use knives or vehicles.
Furthermore, the seven lives lost in London are heartbreaking, but over three times that number of people die in the United States due to gun violence — every single day.
But, again, it goes back to the fact that, even in a country like the United States where there are firearms practically everywhere, it’s not as if “good guys with guns” are the ones stopping, or preventing, the overwhelming majority of these mass shooters.
So this argument that guns could have prevented what happened in London is ludicrous based on what we see in a country like the U.S. where we have guns — but they’re not doing much of anything to stop or prevent these heinous acts of violence.
If anything, simply comparing the sheer number of victims, it’s obvious that the access to guns these monsters have in the United States allows them to be far more lethal.
These are just the facts:
- The U.S. has the most guns of any major country on Earth and leads the world in per capita gun violence.
- The mass shootings/terror attacks that have taken place here involving a gun are almost always more deadly than those where guns weren’t used.
- Almost none of these violent attacks in the United States, despite the presence of millions of guns in this country, have been stopped by a “good guy with a gun.”
So this total b.s. about guns being the best way to prevent these attacks isn’t just based on some of the most outlandish propaganda I’ve heard, but simple and indisputable facts prove it’s complete nonsense.