Over a period of three consecutive weekdays this month, The Washington Post dedicated an astonishing 5,752 words to its ongoing effort to further erode the Second Amendment liberties of peaceable American citizens. (See here, here and here.)
The three separate pieces focused on the gut-wrenching fact that survivors impacted by acts of violence are often forever emotionally scarred. Obsessed with the kind of violence that is committed with firearms, the paper examined the two mass murders that happened last year at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Fla., and at a school in Townsville, S.C.
The authors and editors couldn’t care less that firearms were already strictly prohibited at both venues. Like every gun law they advocate, these bans failed to deliver on the promises of a society in a constant state of peaceful bliss. Various federal government entities have performed study after study, and not one points to any success these laws have in reducing violence.
What these laws do accomplish without fail, though, is impeding or eliminating the ability of citizens to defend themselves and others from violent, evil acts like those featured by the Post. Oh, and they also make the spineless, emotional folks among us “feel” good and safe. For whatever reason, this seems supremely important to them.
When is the newspaper going to dedicate so many words to telling the stories of similarly devastating emotional trauma experienced by victims who were rendered utterly defenseless by their own government officials?When is this newspaper going to dedicate so many words to telling the stories of similarly devastating emotional trauma experienced by victims who were rendered utterly defenseless by their own government officials? There are tens of thousands of rape, robbery and assault victims in jurisdictions like Maryland, California and Washington, D.C., who were attacked outside of their homes. Because they were in public, they were denied the ability to go armed and ready to defend themselves. The government tied their hands behind their backs as their attackers approached.
Of course, there are too many like New Jersey’s Carol Bowne who are no longer alive to tell their stories. Her ex-boyfriend, whom she had long feared and sought protective measures against, stabbed her to death in her driveway. Maybe the Post could interview her family members and friends.
Bowne knew her court order and new security system would not protect her. She decided it was time to resort to the ultimate means of protection, just as hundreds of millions of her fellow Americans have over the generations. Her months-delayed application to purchase her defensive handgun was still pending on an uncaring bureaucrat’s desk when her physically dominant, knife-wielding attacker brutally ended her life. Thanks to the tireless efforts of the NRA, it is worth noting that New Jersey is one of only a few states where a law-abiding citizen like Bowne cannot immediately obtain a handgun in their time of need from a licensed dealer after an instant background check.
As I have stated so many times, the only variable in the firearm equation that can truly be controlled by the government is faithfully honoring our right as citizens, not subjects, to freely and efficiently exercise our constitutional right to bear arms. Those intent on violating society’s most sacred laws will not be deterred from trespassing against much more minor, administrative laws to get their hands on guns despite the government’s best efforts. New Jersey consciously denied Carol her last chance to save her own life. The state is complicit in her homicide.
Governments like that of New Jersey act immorally in this manner while happily accepting that they have no responsibility whatsoever for the protection of individual residents. This is borne out in the fact that Bowne’s family cannot sue the state or local jurisdiction for failing to stop her murder. It is impossible to reconcile the idea of any being or entity denying responsibility for an individual’s safety, while at the same time denying that person the ability to most effectively provide for his or her own security. It’s tantamount to blindfolding people and telling them they are on their own to safely walk across a six-lane freeway during rush hour.
The case should make anyone who loves America for what it was intended to be seethe with anger. It certainly does me. It would seem worthy of a gut-wrenching emotional journey like the one recently written by the Post reporter about the terrible events that occurred in South Carolina. But then, this story doesn’t help further the paper’s political agenda, does it?
It would seem worthy of a gut-wrenching emotional journey like the one recently written by the Post reporter about the terrible events that occurred in South Carolina.The Post’s decision-makers are nothing but sorry victims waiting to happen. They are the type to cower when the fight comes. They refuse to assume responsibility for something as fundamental as their own safety and that of their family members. They delegate that most important core duty to the police. It is work too dirty, dangerous and scary for them. What makes them sinister is that they want to impose their chosen helplessness on the rest of us, who want nothing to do with it.
They dismiss successful stories of citizen self-defense using firearms as aberrations, despite the best available data showing there are more than 700,000 instances every year in America. Because of the extraordinary restraint exercised by law-abiding gun owners, only a tiny fraction involve the discharge of the firearm, and then a smaller portion result in the wounding or killing of an attacker. The Washington Post’s cocktail party elites will never allow themselves to be persuaded by the facts and evidence.
They don’t care that one mother and another father living in Indianapolis were forced to use their firearms to kill home invaders on consecutive nights last week. Telling this story might leave some readers believing that defensive gun use really is as common as empirical research suggests, and that firearms can actually be useful in the hands of good people.
It’s always best for the Post and others in the media to continue to tell only the story of the harm done with firearms in the hands of criminals. They will never choose to own and benefit from firearms themselves, so it’s best to discourage as many others from owning guns as possible, right? There’s a reason they don’t advocate for a 5 mph national speed limit that would, unlike additional gun controls, undoubtedly save thousands of lives every year in America—it would inconvenience them. They all benefit from fast-moving, killer vehicles.
There is growing talk around the country about “fake news” and the biased media. There is little wonder why, when their work is viewed with a critical eye. Remember, it’s as much about what they don’t cover as it is what they do.Darren LaSorte lobbied with NRA-ILA for 14 years and now lives and works in Dallas. His passions are shooting, hunting and self-defense training.