I don't know what's a more irrational argument to make if you're on the side of those who want to dramatically scale down the 2nd Amendment and impose a universal gun registry via increasingly invasive background checks, this idea that violence and destruction carried out by an individual or a group of people is okay as long as a high powered firearm wasn't the weapon of choice, or that murder on a large scale is acceptable as long as a gun wasn't used by the killer or killers. The stabbing incident at Lone Star College thank the good Lord had no deaths but there were 14 injured and 2 in critical condition. The man who attacked students, a student himself, was tackled to the ground and surrendered.
However, like my friends on the left I'm now going to use a hypothetical after the fact: What if the student in this case had a high powered rifle instead of a knife? On Twitter there were some interesting responses to the interview of two Lone Star College students who were advocating for a right to carry a firearm on campus. They were being interviewed by the television ratings hound and political lightweight Piers Morgan. Those watching the interview responding on Twitter and the responses from liberals were, of course completely moronic, and I'm being kind.
One person tweeted quote, "Um gun nuts, the stabbing spree proves our point not yours, everybody's alive." Now before your eyes cross by the shear stupidity and naive logic of this tweet, consider this: Yes everybody lived, but what if that attacker had a gun instead of a knife? I know, I know, knife attacks are fine with liberals because no one dies in a knife attack ever, but what if this young man had a gun instead of a knife? Let's take guns and knives out of the equation, what if he had a bomb instead of a gun or a knife?
Here's a better example of how dumb this person's tweet was: To the female members of Red State, say you're walking home one early evening and someone runs up behind you and smashes you in the back of the head with a bat. You fall to the ground and they proceed to beat you and rape you violently. After they're done, they take your purse and run off. Someone finds you laying there and they call the police. At the hospital a detective comes in and says to you: "Well ma'm, had they been armed with a gun you would have been dead. They beat you within an inch of your life, they raped you but at least they didn't have a gun"
Try to process the logic of the liberal and you'll find yourself blowing chunks from motion sickness because their's is a logic one cannot comprehend for it does not apply to real world scenarios or concrete outcomes. Not one real life scenario plays out exactly like the other, and it's totally moronic and ignorant to assume that it does. Yes he had a knife and thank God no one was killed, but if this ever happened again, can you say with absolute confidence that the next would be attacker won't be packing steel?
The left says: "Well at least so and so didn't have a gun this time" Well what if they did, I know my questions are on loop but this is important. You don't know what will happen next time, and yet liberals shut down the case as though the final verdict had been delivered. But if one cannot predict if they'll live to see tomorrow, how can you predict what weapon will be used in the next college campus attack, or the next elementary school attack? Sometimes, if the person didn't cause as much damage as they intended, they come back with something that will achieve that goal...like a gun maybe?
"What if he had a gun?" vs "What if he had a gun?"
The liberal argument is, a knife is less dangerous than a gun so that proves their point that gun control is needed because it drastically reduces mass shootings. But again I ask: What if the person had a gun, all those students who were stabbed would be dead right? I want to explain to you what a law does to people: A law, unfortunately almost always puts the law abiding citizen at a disadvantage to the criminal who had no regard for the laws that are put in place. I know, it's a cliched argument and its an old argument but its also true in most cases, particularly when it comes to crime and guns.
Both sides are asking the same question: "What if so and so had a gun?" So its a wash, and the debate rages on.
If some violence and some destruction is acceptable then we've got far worse problems as a culture and a nation than a wide access to firearms.
ATTENTION LIBERALS: NOT EVERY MASS ATTACK WILL BE CARRIED OUT USING MOM'S FAVORITE KITCHEN KNIFE
"Oh no he's got a knife"
"Oh my he's got a gun!"
"Oh no, he's got a gun with a knife attached to it"