When Evil Comes for Us

When law abiding citizens have no more tools with which to defend ourselves, what will we do when evil comes for us?

When Evil Comes for Us

Here is one of many problems—and in my view the MOST DANGEROUS problem—with the liberal position of banning “assault weapons” after the Orlando shooting:

Guns are tools, and nothing more. They can be tools used for good or tools used for evil. The same can be said of any tool. A hammer is a tool designed to hit things. It can hit a nail (a good use) or a person’s head (an evil use). A box cutter is a tool. It can cut boxes apart (a good use), or cut a person (an evil use). A gun is a tool.  It can shoot targets or game animals or violent criminals (a good use) or an innocent person (an evil use).

AND HERE’S THE PROBLEM:

The Left keeps talking about assault weapons as the “tool of choice” for mass shooters, and so we should ban assault weapons.

For now we’ll leave aside the pathetic and uneducated misuse of the term “assault weapon” and just consider how this works.

Once we ban “assault weapons,” will mass shootings go away? Of course not. To assume so would be to assume that assault weapons somehow inspire mass shooters to perform their evil acts, which is ridiculous (which means, unfortunately, that it is likely believed my many on the Left). People decide to perform evil acts and then look for a tool. Lately many have chosen “assault weapons.”

But these are not the ONLY tools they choose. Just to use some of the more recent examples:

Omar Mateen, the Orlando shooter, carried an “assault rifle” and a Glock 17 handgun.

Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter, carried an “assault rifle” and two handguns, a Glock 10mm and a Sig Sauer 9mm.

James Holmes, the Aurora theater shooter, carried an “assault rifle,” a 12-gauge shotgun, and two .40 caliber handguns.

Do you see the similarities, and the dangers?

So let’s say that we ban those evil “assault rifles.” In fact, let’s pretend we could go back in time and ban “assault weapons” before any of these mass shootings, and let’s remove the “assault rifle” from each of them. We are left with the following:

Omar Mateen carried a Glock 17 handgun.

Adam Lanza carried two handguns, a Glock 10mm and a Sig Sauer 9mm.

James Holmes carried a 12-gauge shotgun and two .40 caliber handguns.

Do you see the problem? Once the “tool of choice” is banned, those wanting to commit mass murder will simply default to their next tool of choice: handguns and non-“assault rifles.”

What will the left say then? You and I both know what they’ll say: the handgun has become the “tool of choice” for mass shooters. It must be banned. Then shotguns are the tool of choice, and must be banned.

 Once they have finally gotten their way and all firearms are banned, we will become like China, Japan, and UK, where knives are the tool of choice for mass killers.

And then what? We keep going down the list? Then we ban axes and then bows and arrows, and then box cutters and then hammers and then fists and then feet? After that do we ban Christmas lights, model cars, and pressure cookers (all used in the bombs built by the Boston bombers)? And then finally do we ban airplanes?

We waste time when focusing on the tools. Our focus should be on the evil motives behind the killer’s actions. In some cases this is pure insanity, and in others—and this obviously explains Obama’s current attempt to change the focus to the tool—it is radical Islam, something the Left is loathe to discuss.

So the problem isn’t just that the Left is so focused on the tool that they (purposely) ignore the evil; the problem is that the end game of this focus is the complete stripping of our Second Amendment rights.

And then, when law abiding citizens have no more tools with which to defend ourselves, what will we do when evil comes for us?