Earlier today, I took Rep. Jamie Raskin to task for his inane claim that the Boulder terrorist attack somehow warrants gun control. It was an idiotic argument to make, especially in light of everything we know about the attack. An illegal immigrant used non-firearms in a heavily gun-controlled state to attack a group of people who represented something he didn’t like.
It’s obvious how little gun control would have accomplished, especially as there are apparently some indications that he tried to get a gun and was denied because, well, he’s an illegal immigrant.
Over at the Washington Examiner, Zachary Faria apparently shares my sentiments on the matter.
This is all completely irrelevant. The pro-Palestinian terrorist in Boulder did not use a gun, “military-style assault weapon,” or otherwise. He would never have passed any sort of background check because he is an illegal immigrant. “Lax gun laws” have nothing to do with Molotov cocktails. This was a targeted, antisemitic attack from an antisemitic terrorist who has consumed left-wing narratives about Israel and “Palestine.”
If anything, the opposite is the problem in Boulder, which has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country. Colorado is becoming one of the worst states for legal gun owners. Boulder restricts concealed carry in and around certain buildings, including courthouses. The protest and subsequent attack took place outside the Boulder City Courthouse.
How do you think this scenario would have played out in, say, Texas, had a terrorist pulled out a Molotov cocktail and prepared to throw it at protesters? Do you think it’s a coincidence that this attack and the shooting of two Israeli Embassy workers in Washington, D.C., both took place in cities that have the most restrictive gun laws in the country? The terrorist in the Washington, D.C., shooting even flew into the city with his gun so he could hit a soft target.
Faria finishes the piece by writing, “If Democrats can’t explain why it was better that the protesters could not defend themselves, there is no debate to be had.” That sums everything up perfectly, in my book.
What happened in Boulder is terrible, but there’s not even a hint of evidence that gun control would have made anything better. Especially as it also reduces the chances of potential victims being armed, and that’s never a recipe for preventing crime.
The truth is that our Second Amendment rights aren’t beneficial to terrorists. They’re a deterrent to acts of terrorism.
Let’s think about the terrorist attacks we’ve seen in this country, particularly Islamic terror attacks. Many of them were in anti-gun states.
Meanwhile, when they tried to disrupt an art show in Texas, they got lit up in the parking lot before they could accomplish anything. That’s how it should be. That’s what every would-be terrorist should have to be concerned about.
I know they don’t care about dying much of the time, but dying before they can accomplish their mission? That’s something else, which is enough of a win.
Gun rights prevent that.
Guns in the hand of at least one person on that walk might well have changed the entire outcome of this story.
Enacting gun control, as both Faria and I have noted, doesn’t do any good.
Read the full article here
