As if on cue, the Daily Wire is reporting an incident that shows why the right to keep and bear arms is so crucial. The story caught my attention for two reasons. First, I enjoy highlighting when good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns. And I am married to a retired firefighter (you’ll see where that fits in momentarily).
On August 8th, at about 4 p.m., in Springfield, Missouri, a man wearing body armor, armed with a rifle, and carrying over 100 rounds of ammunition walked into a Walmart. The Springfield Police Department (SPD) has not yet determined the man’s precise intentions (to scare people or to shoot them).
Either way, SPD Lt. Mike Lucas didn’t believe the 20-year-old man’s intentions were good. Lt. Lucas said, “In fact, he’s lucky to be alive still to be honest.” He also said he thinks at least some of the man’s actions were criminal, although he didn’t elaborate on what were the specific crimes. Police reported no shots fired or injuries suffered.
Police suspect the man may have had a Facebook live broadcast active during the incident. They are investigating his social media for that and any other information. If the man’s intention had been violence, you may be wondering why no one was injured or killed.
Seems a good guy with a gun was also in the store. An armed, off-duty fireman, licensed to carry a concealed firearm, “held him at gunpoint until officers arrived about 3 minutes later.” Before the man could shoot anyone.
Because of the recent mass casualty shootings in California, Texas, and Ohio (and a mass casualty stabbing spree in California), Americans are understandably on edge. But this instance shows the folly of the anti-gun forces believing that disarming good guys will somehow stop armed bad guys. What might that armed man have done if the government had usurped that firefighter’s right to carry a gun?
Take away guns from good guys and only bad guys will have guns. This is not just a glib talking point—it’s a spot-on accurate equation. It’s like math but with words.
Published by OpsLens, my colleague David Kamioner recently wrote an excellent article which illustrates this point. He reminds us about what happened when the government attempted to take alcohol away from the people. It empowered and enriched the likes of Al Capone. He and criminals like him made fortunes under prohibition with the black market it created. He also extends the point to modern times and the drug prohibitions that have made billionaires of cartel leaders.
Yet, he emphasizes, under each prohibition lawbreakers never have a problem getting prohibited items. Under a gun prohibition, the same would be true. Kamioner wrote, “Merely because you loathe something, be it booze, drugs, or guns, doesn’t mean others will stop desiring it.”
Last I checked, Americans don’t have a constitutional right to booze or drugs, but they do have a constitutional right to firearms. But people continued to get alcohol during prohibition, and we know how easy it is to get illegal drugs today.
And there is the real risk of an insurrection if not civil war if the government should ever attempt to confiscate Americans’ guns. Aside from the resistance from ordinary American gun owners, there are thousands of law enforcement officers (including police chiefs and sheriffs), sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution, including the Second Amendment, who would never comply with an order to disarm Americans.
So, the anti-gun left needs to stop their blathering on about fake, do-something “solutions” that have nothing to do with solving anything. In fact, they would only make the things they’re trying to solve worse. Disarming potential victims of violence does not make a community safer—it does the exact opposite.