Gun Control Doesn’t Stop Mass Shootings, It Helps Mass Killers

We’re probably going to spill a lot of digital ink talking about the shooting in Twin Falls, ID. That’s to be expected following a high-profile shooting that claims people’s lives. This time, though, while we mourn the loss of life, we’re also able to celebrate the fact that it wasn’t worse.

Good guys with guns stop massacres, often before they can become a “mass shooting” by various definitions.

Still, in the wake of these massacres, anti-gunners routinely demand gun control. Yet, as Victor Joecks notes at the Las Vegas Review-Journal, gun control hurts the good guys, not the killers.

It’s possible to stop mass shooters, but not if the gun grabbers get their way.

…

After a 2021 shooting at the Boise Towne Square mall, Salinas started training with a firearm in earnest. He provides full-time care for his brother, who’s in a wheelchair. Salinas believed a gunman would look for “soft targets” — such as a man in a wheelchair and his caregiver.

He refused to be one and ended up saving numerous lives.

Think about what would have happened if gun-control advocates had been able to enact new restrictions after the 2021 Boise shooting. They would have made it harder for Salinas to obtain the weapon he used to stop this mass shooting. That’s because new gun laws have the greatest effect on the least dangerous people. People are alive today because Idaho has firearm freedom.

Don’t expect a national debate on these trade-offs. The propaganda press has a predictable rubric for how much coverage mass shootings receive. If the villain or narrative can be tied to conservatives, it’ll be a major story. If the villain is connected to the left, it’ll be a story about guns. If the shooting is inconvenient to gun grabbers, it’ll disappear. And if it involves gangs, it won’t even make the national news. Another example of inverse journalism.

It’s not intentional, but mass shooters have no stronger allies than gun-control advocates.

And let’s understand just what that last sentence really means.

One of the most popular talking points among anti-gunners is that modern sporting rifles are the most popular choice for would-be mass killers. On Tuesday, though, Cam wrote about an FBI report looking at active shooters. That report noted that 53 percent of shooters used a handgun. Rifles were only used in a third of the attacks. 

So, it would seem that handguns are still the preferred weapon for these people, despite what anti-gunners would have you believe. Assault weapon bans wouldn’t help.

Meanwhile, these same people want to make it as difficult as possible for people like Jordan Salinas to carry a firearm. They wanted the vampire rule in place, which would probably have forced Salinas to either ignore the law or disarm, had it been in place in Idaho. Especially since it’s unlikely an In-and-Out place is going to announce guns are welcome.

They oppose the Bruen decision, which, among other things, killed “may issue” permitting. They’d prefer to see someone like Salinas have to prove a need to carry a firearm, and the seemingly unlikely chance that a massacre was going to take place in front of him would probably have been unpersuasive to many.

Honestly, the list could go on. I could probably write an entire book about all the gun control propositions that would have protected actual mass killers if anti-gunners got their way.

Luckily, they haven’t.

It’s up to us to make sure they never do.

Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.

Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.