• Crime / Law

In an end-of-year report released in late December, the Associated Press revealed that “mass killings” in the United States were at an all-time high, most of which were committed with firearms as the perpetrators’ weapons of choice.

Tucked deep within the article, however, the AP notes that California, in spite of having some of the nation’s strictest gun control laws, saw the most “mass slayings”.

Well, that’s not very convenient for the gun control narrative, isn’t it?

The AP defined mass slayings as any event in which “four or more people are killed excluding the perpetrator.” In 2019, there were 41 such slayings, resulting in 211 deaths. While firearms were used 33 of the killings, many were committed with axes or knives, and at least two were incidents in which mobile homes were set ablaze, killing all occupants.

And yet, unsurprisingly, not once did we hear any outcry for a ban on edged and bladed weapons or tighter regulations on lighters and gasoline. It figures.

Although nearly half of the states in the Union experienced at least one mass killing, Californians experienced eight of them, representing just under 20 percent of the whole.

While the AP did note that California has “some of the most strict gun laws in the country,” Breitbart had the courtesy to provide a handy list:

California has universal background checks, gun registration requirements, gun confiscation laws, a 10-day waiting period on gun purchases, an “assault weapons” ban, a one-handgun-a-month purchase limit, a ban on campus carry for self-defense, and a ban on teachers being armed to shoot back if under attack. They also require would-be gun buyers to acquire a safety certificate from the state before being allowed to make a gun purchase.

California has ammunition controls as well.

Are we seeing the picture here, yet?

Most of the slayings “barely became national news, failing to resonate among the general public because they didn’t spill into public places,” AP reported, pointing to mass shootings in El Paso, Texas; Dayton, Ohio, and other attacks that captured the nation’s attention.

One can’t help but wonder, however, if the reason the bulk of the killings didn’t make national headlines is the fact that ax attacks, stabbings, and deadly structure fires don’t quite stir up the furor that a mass shooting does. After all, how are they going to advance a gun-grabbing narrative if the public is constantly reminded that anyone intent on harming another human being (or several) can gather a few common household objects and go on a killing spree?

Furthermore, the AP notes that, in spite of the hype and fear caused by mass shootings, “The majority of the killings involved people who knew each other — family disputes, drug or gang violence or people with beefs that directed their anger at co-workers or relatives.”

Back in August, President Trump said that the United States already has “very strong background checks right now.” Mass shootings were a “mental problem,” he added, not a gun access problem. “I said it 100 times, it’s not the gun that pulls the trigger, it’s the person that pulls the trigger.”

It’s plain for anyone to see that gun restrictions do not save lives. If anything, they ensure that murderers will have an easier time picking off unarmed targets. But, as the recent church shooting in Texas shows, even just one lawfully-armed, well-trained civilian can mean the difference between many lives saved and many lives lost.

This article was first published on the Activist Mommy website, and is republished with permission. You may not use, copy, distribute, publish, syndicate, sub-license and transmit the whole or any part of such material in any manner and in any format and/or media without the permission of the original publishers.

Close Menu