It seems that mass shootings are becoming increasingly popular in our culture, especially in schools. About a week and a half ago, a 17-year-old student walked into a high school in Santa Fe, Texas, killing 10 people and injured 10 more using a shotgun and a .38 revolver, according to The New York Times. The shooter was wearing a trenchcoat as well as combat boots and a shirt that read “Born to Kill,” which a picture of the shirt had also been posted to his Facebook prior to when the shooting took place. The shooter has no history of arrest or any problems with the law so it raises the question of what went wrong?
Governor of Texas, Greg Abbot, also said that the shooter had information about the shooting on his computer and cellphone. The information included him saying that he wanted to commit the shooting and that he also wanted to commit suicide after the shooting.
The weapons used to carry out this shooting were owned by the shooters father, who owns them legally. There’s much more information on this event, but I don’t want to make this post too long. But it’s clear to see that the shooter was mentally disturbed. Where there weren’t as many warning signs as there were with the shooter from Parkland, Florida, I think there still should have been action taken by the authorities. While I am moderately libertarian and believe in very limited government, I think that protecting people is one area where we should have government intervene and be involved. This goes back to the Social Contract Theory by John Locke, in which people agree to be governed by a government in exchange for something such as protection. At the minimum, we need metal detectors at every entrance and multiple armed security guards protecting our schools. Arming teachers has also been proposed by President Trump. I think all of these are great ideas and would make our schools much safer.
In other news, a gunman opened fire at a bar and grill in Oklahoma last Thursday but before he could kill or injure anyone, two armed citizens took down the shooter by shooting him dead. This story was probably not covered all that much in the mainstream media. Why is this? Because the left-wing media and just the left, in general, don’t like to talk about the fact that a good guy with a guy in the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun, and it’s not even close. As I mentioned in my previous article about the BBMA’s, leftists will never say outright that they want to ban all guns. Instead, “gun control” is a very common phrase but when you get down to it, it’s really a gun ban they want. They want the 2nd Amendment repealed and guns taken away from everyone, never to be owned again. A perfect example of this is a little over a month ago when a shooter opened fire at a Waffle House in Nashville, Tennessee which killed four people. He would have killed more but a very brave man, James Shaw Jr., ran at the shooter and wrestled his gun away. Immediately after this happened, the entire left claimed that this was proof we don’t need guns to protect us from mass shooters. This might quite possibly be the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Lauren Hogg, who is the sister of the execrable David Hogg tweeted this out, “I’m tired of people saying, ‘The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.’ Fighting fire with fire never got anything done. It just burned everything down. It is the same reason why we must never fight hate with hate. Only love can drive out hate.” Right, so Lauren, whenever I’m being shot at, I’ll just walk up to the shooter and tell him or her that I love them. Then they’ll instantly drop their gun and we’ll hug it out and be best friends. I mean, come on. This is so stupid. “Fighting fire with fire never got anything done.” You can’t compare fire to a gun, while they can both be destructive, they’re destructive in different ways. Obviously, if you’re trying to put out a fire, you’ll use water. Everyone knows that. But apparently, not everyone knows that if you want to stop a shooter your best bet is to have a gun so you can shoot back. Now, while James Shaw was able to take down the shooter in Nashville without a gun, are you telling me it wouldn’t have been better for him to be armed instead of not armed? The risk of getting injured or killed would have been much less had he been armed, you can’t argue that.
There’s simply no getting around that fact that a good guy with a gun is the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun. You can try to attack it from every angle and disprove it but in the end, you’ll fail every time because it’s a fact.