Mass murder incidents are horrible. They should not happen. The people killed should not have been attacked, and those people should still be alive today.
That’s a truth that every decent human being agrees with. There’s nothing controversial in those statements.
However, a recent mass murder incident happened in Australia that some people simply won’t be able to believe, not just because of how horrible it was, but because of how it was ended.
As you may recall, Australia is one of those countries that anti-2A activists point to and try to use to justify their pushes to take our guns. They argue that gun confiscation in Australia reduced the amount of violent crime in that country (It didn’t. The downward trend was happening before the gun ban, and the gun ban didn’t change anything about that trend, not even how fast it was decreasing.).
Keeping that in mind, see if you notice how this mass Murder incident was ended. Paul Sacca writes,
Authorities say six people were fatally stabbed by a man in a busy shopping mall on Saturday afternoon in Sydney, Australia. The attacker was gunned down by a female police officer, who is being heralded as a hero.
Did you catch that? The attacker was shot by a police officer.
He was shot. With a gun.
But, according to anti-2A activists, we don’t need guns to stop murders and would-be murderers.
Seems like something is off here.
According to anti-2A activists, this mass Murder couldn’t happen in Australia. After all, they’ve banned nearly all guns. And, according to those same activists, this police officer didn’t need a firearm to stop the criminal (never mind that he’d already fatally stabbed multiple people and she was, as a female, likely physically weaker than the man, so, would need something to even the odds).
Maybe it’s the anti-2A activists that are the ones that are mistaken and not legal gun owners like you and me. What do you think?