Today we reported on and offered our condolences to the victims of the shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue where 11 people were killed by a crazed idiot and several others, including a few police officers, were injured.
If there were armed citizens among their congregation they would have been able to fight back significantly decreasing the number of people killed to potentially one: The idiot who started shooting in the first place.
How do I know?
Well, besides being common sense, shortly after publishing that horrific story I happened upon a totally different story with an alternate outcome where a shooter tried and failed. Said shooter was taken out by a dad with a gun. This is extremely important because the dad and his child were struck by bullets and the dad was still able to protect his kid when he fatally shot the attacker with his own pistol.
Had he not been armed the outcome would have been drastically different. Father would have had to watch his child die right before his eyes, or maybe the child would watch his father die. Either way, it would have sucked for all those involved. Thankfully, there was a positive outcome. Well, mostly.
The sad part is that you won't hear much about that true story because it doesn't fit any anti-gun narrative. If it were the opposite, if the dad hadn't prevailed against a nut job intent on killing people, it'd be all over the news. Everyone would have heard about it, as the gun grabbers would undoubtedly start up their usual rhetoric about guns being bad, and, nobody needs an AR-15 because deer don't shoot back.
True, the deer don't shoot back. Then again, the Second Amendment wasn't exactly written because the founding fathers wanted us to be able to hunt. Sure, it applies to hunting, but that wasn't the idea. We went really far into detail on that recently in this article, so I'll move on to my next point.
The real truth of the matter is that this dad saved himself and his kid because he was sufficiently armed to do so. This is why I carry a gun in church and why I'm carrying right now as I sit in my home and type this up.
It's not that I live in an unsafe neighborhood, but any crazed lunatic hopped up on methamphetamine is capable of breaking into a home, or a McDonald's, or Starbucks, Target, Wal Mart, the grocery store, or anywhere else you may frequent trying to kill people.
The fact that I carry a concealed gun on my person, as did that dad, just means that I'm safeguarding my family against whatever fate a lunatic may desire for them. You know, it's kinda like a fire extinguisher.
You don't buy a fire extinguisher because you're hoping for a fire, you realize that one may happen at any moment and while you do your best to prevent a fire, it's better to have the fire extinguisher on hand, just in case. Much in the same way, is my thinking about carrying gun. I value my family so much that I'm willing to protect them by stopping a threat with my firearm.
It really doesn't take rocket science to figure out that guns are the answer. If more people were carrying the bad folks would be less inclined to hurt us because there would be the potential for us to shoot back. Criminals usually value their lives as much as we do, even if it is in some twisted sense. More guns, not fewer are the answer. More armed citizens, not fewer, are the answer.
We, The People who are law abiding citizens are not the enemy–We are the solution.