Do you want to know what annoys me more than a cowardly cop? A cowardly cop who claims he has no legal duty to act in an extreme situation.
That’s just what happened in a courtroom recently, where Deputy Scot Peterson, the cop who stood outside of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School during an active shooter situation, and his lawyer, Michael Piper, told Judge Englander Henning: “We want to say [Peterson] had an obligation, but the law isn’t that. From a legal standpoint, there was no duty.”
The judge was quick to dismiss such a claim, saying that Peterson had an “obligation to act reasonably” regarding the shooting.
This is a wrongful death suit brought about by Andrew Pollack, whose daughter, Meadow Pollack, died along 16 other victims of the Parkland shooting.
Here’s a short run-down of the events that unfolded on the day of the shooting from the Deputy’s perspective, which was confirmed by Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel: Peterson radioed in that he was hearing gunshots. He was standing outside the building, listening to the shots, and radioed in “shots fired.” He had arrived on scene shortly after the attack started, but stood outside for five minutes until the attack concluded, according to Today.com.
Now, let me argue this particular point: I don’t blame Peterson for having been afraid in that situation, if he even was afraid. Anyone would be afraid in that situation and no one wants to be in such a situation. But bravery is not the absence of fear, it’s taking action despite fear. So Deputy Peterson was most definitely not brave in this situation, if he indeed was afraid, which I assume he was.
But that is one thing. It is an entirely different thing to argue in court that he has NO LEGAL DUTY to respond when he most definitely does! As a police officer, it’s 100% his DUTY to protect and serve. Such an idea is so important, it is often featured on the side of their vehicles. The guy’s lawyer is trying to point to a policy within Broward County’s active shooter situation which says that officers “may” engage in an active shooter scenario, not shall. Such a policy is horrendous and it is the antithesis of a police officer’s duty to protect the lives of civilians.
Now, Deputy Scot Peterson failed to perform his duty as a deputy of Broward County. And that’s bad, but what’s worse is the belief that he had NO legal responsibility to act in any way. This tells me he has absolutely no remorse about his inaction on the day of the shooting.
When something major happens, people tend to have regrets. “Maybe if I had done this instead” is a typical thought that goes through people’s heads. For him and his lawyer to argue that Peterson had no legal duty to act in that situation is horribly offensive (not the sissy Leftist use of the word. I mean actually offensive) and highlights his rottenness as a human being.
Again, if he failed to act because he was scared, that’s one thing. Someone who is a cop and is scared to do his job does not deserve the job. But someone who is a cop, is scared to do his job, and then argues that he has no obligation to do his job is someone who is seriously devoid of sympathy, remorse and most of all, a heart.
I get that he’s trying to protect himself in this lawsuit, but to argue he did not have to act WHEN ONE OF THE BIGGEST TASKS ENTRUSTED TO COPS IS TO ACT IN SUCH A SCENARIO is downright awful.
In articles where I talked about the shooting, I would sometimes blame the coward cop who stood outside doing nothing. Apart from blaming the FBI and County Sheriff’s office for not having followed up on serious threats, a big part of the blame fell on Peterson. Whenever I would blame him, I referred to him as the “coward cop”. Now, I can’t say the same.
Now, I call him the “evil cop”. Not acting in such a situation due to fear is understandable (of course, him being a cop, it was less understandable because cops are supposed to risk their very lives for others. They carry guns!). But I honestly have doubts on whether or not he was actually afraid. I argued earlier that he probably was, because anyone would be, but I’m not entirely sure. Because a coward will often feel remorse about their cowardice. The way this sounds, it appears to me that the cop wasn’t afraid, but apathetic.
He couldn’t care less about protecting others, which is why he doesn’t feel remorse over what he did. That much is evident by the fact he argues he had no responsibility to act when his job largely calls on him to act in such a situation.
Andrew Pollack, when he filed the suit, tweeted the following: “I filed a wrongful death suit against Deputy Peterson today. I want to expose that coward so bad. Wherever he goes, I want people to recognize him and say that’s one of the cowards of Broward. The SRO that let those children and teachers die on the 3rd floor!”
I totally understand why he’s saying this. Being a cop and not responding to an active shooter situation is cowardly. But again, I’m not so sure he was simply afraid.
Now, I could be totally wrong, of course. After all, I wasn’t there, I don’t know what went through his mind at the time, and I simply don’t know the guy personally. But his pathetic argument in the court room shows no sympathy for the victims that he failed to protect.
Again, cowards tend to feel remorse over their cowardice. A cop who could’ve done something but failed to do it tends to feel remorse over his inaction. Peterson could’ve done something to stop the shooter. Being a cop, he had a weapon with him, and this being a school and therefore a gun-free zone, he had the best chance at stopping the shooter before he could cause much more damage. That was his very duty. And not only did he fail to do it, have every opportunity in the world to do it, and even considerable time to do it, he does not even think he had any obligation to any of the 17 victims to try and go in and protect them. Not even TRY.
In one of the Batman films by Christopher Nolan, there is a very famous phrase that goes like this: “You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.” I’m not saying Peterson should’ve died that day. I’m saying he had the duty to go in there and do something, even if it cost him his life, and he failed to do that. Actually, he didn’t fail to do that, because that would indicate some sort of intention to act. He DIDN’T WANT to do that. And now, he’s seeing himself become the villain in the eyes of the victim’s families, and many others.
Batman may have failed to save Rachel, but he was at least trying to save her. Peterson wasn’t even trying to help those kids and faculty, when he very easily could have.
And now, he says he had no duty to act? What a sick joke.
Here’s hoping Andrew Pollack wins the suit (which is pretty likely) and there is at least some justice for the Parkland victims.
“So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
After the most recent school shooting to strike at the heart of the country, Democrats and the Left as a whole have made sure to go after the people who are NOT responsible for this: the NRA and gun-owners/second amendment supporters.
They are very efficient in turning a national tragedy into a political game. And it’s sickening.
Recently, the Crappiest Name in News held a town hall meeting that was purely used as a means to attack anyone who defends the second amendment and was not meant to be a discussion of ideas.
But another event that occurred recently is the Conservative Political Action Conference, CPAC for short.
This event hosted a lot of conservatives from the President and Vice President to the leader of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre. He’s the person I’ll be focusing on most in this article.
LaPierre made the excellent point that we tend to secure a lot of things in this country, but children are not among the things we secure.
“It’s a bizarre fact that in this country our jewelry stores, all over this country, are more important than our children. Our banks, our airports, our NBA games, our NFL games, our office buildings, our movie stars, our politicians, they’re all more protected than our children in school.”
He continued with: “Does that make any sense to anybody? Do we really love our money and our celebrities more than we love our children?”
Again, this is a very good point. Why is it that every other government building is better protected than our SCHOOLS?!
Now, I know the Left’s position on this. “How dare you even suggest arming our teachers? How dare you suggest placing people with GUNS near our children? How dare you suggest we have metal detectors in our schools? That would turn schools into prison!”
All of these things are easily challenged. Why arm our teachers? Because they’ll be able to protect the children faster than the police. They’ll be able to shut down the attacker faster. If there even is an attacker in the first place. When was the last time someone attacked a police station? Or a prison?
Sickos like Nikolas Cruz, who hardly seems to even get any of the hatred from the Left, would be more hesitant to attack any place that likely has armed security. The reason shooters target theaters, churches and schools is because they tend not to be too heavily guarded by weapons, if at all.
If we trust teachers to teach our children, why wouldn’t we trust them to protect them as well? Why wouldn’t we trust them to protect them with their own weapons? But even then, we don’t have to arm the teachers. We could just have armed security as well who are payed by the school district to protect the people there, just as armed security in any other government building is tasked with protecting the people there.
But the Left has a problem with this solution, one: because it’s an actual solution and the last thing the Left needs is a solution to shootings. So long as there are shootings, they are able to shove their agenda down people’s throats. And two: because their issue is not the children’s lives, their issue is guns. They can’t begin to comprehend the concept of a good guy with a gun. To them, anyone who has a gun is a bad guy or potential bad guy.
When it comes to metal detectors, I’m admittedly more conflicted on this one. I don’t think it would be necessary to have metal detectors. Having armed security should ideally be enough. Considering most shootings happen with rifles, they’d be pretty difficult to conceal when walking into a school. Any posted security guard at any entrance would be able to see someone coming with a gun when they shouldn’t.
So metal detectors, I don’t think are necessary, but I’d still like to contend with the Left on this. I try to view things from multiple perspectives, so I’ll try to do that with this proposition as well.
Metal detectors would be an added security feature, for sure. What the Left says about it is that it would make schools look and feel like prisons. Aside from the fact that schools are already pretty similar to prisons in many ways (authoritarian structure, dress code, emphasis on silence and order, loss of individual autonomy, set times enforced for walking, eating, etc.), why would the way a school looks and feels take precedent over the safety of the children? With this argument, is the Left signifying that they care more about how things look and feel than they care about the safety and lives of children?
I wish it didn't have to come to these sort of proposals. I wish no one would dare attack a school. But we must face reality. These things happen, but we can take measures against them. We should act accordingly with things that will actually work, not gun control measures that won't help a single person.
Returning to LaPierre, he also points out that the Democrats “hate the NRA. They hate the Second Amendment. They hate individual freedom.”
“For them it’s not a safety issue, it’s a political issue. Their goal is to eliminate the Second Amendment and our firearms freedoms, so they can eradicate all individual freedoms. Their solution is to make you, all of you, less free. They want to sweep right under the carpet the failure of school security, the failure of family, the failure of America’s mental health system and even the unbelievable failure of the FBI.”
All good points which are all correct. The Left doesn’t want a solution to this problem unless it comes as part of a nationwide guns confiscation and Second Amendment repeal, which, if you’ve read my article telling you about such a goal, would not be effective whatsoever.
They push for gun control as often as they possibly can, pointing to places like the U.K. and Australia which have implemented it and gun crime is not very high. I would like to counter that by pointing out places like Chicago, Jamaica and Honduras. All places with very strict gun control laws and all places with very high murder rates and gun crime rates.
My point is that gun control hasn’t affected the crime rates in any of the countries in any positive way. That is another piece of evidence that should convince people (though it likely won’t) that what counts is the culture in a nation, not the gun laws.
Not to mention that the U.S. has the most guns per 100 residents out of any country. And it’s not even close. According to the Small Arms Survey, the amount of guns owned per 100 residents is 88.8. Serbia comes at #2 with 58.21 and Yemen at #3 with 54.8.
Yet, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the U.S. murder rate sits at just 4.88%. There are over 90 other countries with worse rates and less guns (as we can see from the previous stat). Not to mention that there are severe population differences between the U.S., the U.K. and Australia (and the other countries).
We have the most guns out of all of these countries, the most people out of these countries, but are still among the safest in the world, particularly when accounting for our massive population.
I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again: if guns were the issue, everyone would know it.
But guns aren’t the issue. Not that the Left would ever admit that. They hate guns and hate the fact that people can own them. Wayne LaPierre has it exactly right when he says they hate individual freedom.
Guns provide the people with freedom from the government. A concept that sounds like blasphemy in the ears of the Left.
As a side note, I find it rich that the very people that have called Trump “Hitler” are also the ones demanding he take away people’s guns.
1 Peter 5:8
“Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.”
Author: Freddie D. Marinelli.
During a CNN panel talking about the shooting at the high school in Florida, former Democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’ spokeswoman Symone Sanders made the attempt to make this matter not just about gun laws, but also race.
Sanders said: “If the Parkland shooter had been black or brown we wouldn’t be talking about the types of legislation we could or could not make happen. If he was yelling Allahu Akbar, Congress and the President would’ve been tweeting about it and they would’ve swooped in and did whatever they felt needed…”
Other panelists, such as Bill Kristol tried to make the point that no gun law change occurred after the San Bernardino shootings, with Sanders replying that we have a Muslim ban now.
I’ll get to that part momentarily.
First, I wanna focus on the elephant in the room. She said if the Parkland shooter had been black or brown we wouldn’t be talking about types of legislation. Either she’s insanely stupid or hasn’t been paying much attention at all about the shooter.
Ms. Sanders, I’ll put things in words that even someone like you might be able to understand.
The name of the Parkland shooter was Nikolas Cruz. Typically, that name is indicative of Hispanic descendance. Hispanics tend to count as “brown” people. If you look up his picture, you can see that he’s slightly brown. Admittedly, not too brown, but still of a darker shade than a typical white person.
My question to you then is: what in the absolute heck are you talking about? He may not be black, but he surely is brown. He’s Hispanic. And yet, people talking about this subject couldn’t care less about that. Well, everyone except you, seemingly.
That is why I believe she has either not been paying a whole lot of attention or she’s just that stupid.
Now, she did mention that he had trained with a white supremacist group. The thing about that is that it’s not true. Nikolas Cruz didn’t train with a white supremacist group. This particular fake news comes due to a report by the AP that a spokesman from Republic of Florida, a white supremacist group, “confirmed” that Cruz trained with them.
Later on, however, the story was debunked, saying that pictures taken of “Cruz” didn’t confirm his identity (the pictures showed someone concealing their face or a blurry picture) and the spokesman himself eventually said that there are multiple people in their group by the same name or at least variations of it.
So Sanders is either misinformed and spreading fake news or she’s an idiot and spreading fake news.
Now, let’s move on to the Muslim ban part of her short rant.
Do you know why we have a Muslim ban? Why we specifically disallow these particular people from certain Muslim nations from coming here? Because Islam is the only “religion” in the world that has constant problems with terrorism.
Buddhists don’t have a problem with Buddhist terrorists. Why? Because there are no Buddhist terrorists killing in the name of Buddha.
Hindus don’t have a problem with terrorists in their own religion. Why? Because there are no Hindu terrorists killing in the name of Krishna or Ganesh or Vishnu.
Jews don’t have a problem with terrorists in their own religion. Why? Because there are no Jewish terrorists that kill in the name of Yahweh.
Christians don’t have a problem with terrorists in our own religion. Why? Because there are no Christians that kill in the name of Jesus.
But Muslims have a problem with terrorists in their own religion. Why? BECAUSE ALLAH IS THE ONLY DEITY THAT ORDERS HIS FOLLOWERS TO KILL PEOPLE!
On top of that, the Muslim ban doesn’t even affect all of the Muslim nations in the Middle East, only a select few.
Now, I don’t think it’s necessary for me to go into too much more detail on the actual shooting and on why no form of gun control would work. I simply wanted to share this ridiculous statement made by an insane Leftist who clearly has no idea what it is she’s talking about.
To repeat myself, Nikolas Cruz IS brown, yet, Trump and his administration aren’t doing what Sanders would expect them to do about someone who’s brown in this case. In her mind, she’s probably thinking that Cruz would be sent to Guantanamo Bay or get deported if he were black or brown. Well, he’s brown and he’s still in custody. And likely will be sent to prison for life.
The comment she made highlights her raging ignorance on the subject matter and it also highlights the insanity of the Left’s minds. Whenever a Hispanic person is involved in anything, the Left expects Trump to immediately deport that person even if he or she is here legally. That’s how little they think of Trump and that’s how they view things such as illegal immigration.
I won’t get too much into that topic since it has nothing to do with this case, but it does point to the Left’s mentality. They simply can’t help but to think about people’s race. They are just that shallow.
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.”
Author: Freddie D. Marinelli.
I’ve said this many times before, but this is a conversation that always goes around in circles anyway: gun control doesn’t work. And even a high school student from the very school that was the target of Nikolas Cruz believes gun control doesn’t work.
MSNBC host Brian Williams (yes, the same one that can’t tell the truth to save his life) interviewed a couple of the students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.
Williams asked one of them about the shooting suspect, with him replying that he had a couple of classes with Nikolas but never really associated with him until he was paired with him on a school project. Brandon, the student being interviewed, said that Nikolas told Brandon about how he had gotten expelled from “two different private schools, he was held back twice, he had aspirations to join the military and he enjoyed hunting.”
Williams then mentioned how Cruz left evidence behind on his social media pointing to the eventual shooting and he was the kind of person you’d usually leave alone.
Brandon replied how he “always thought that he was unusual and strange; always sat alone, twiddling his thumbs; keeping to himself, laugh at himself.”
From Brandon’s account, we can see some signs of mental instability. And when Williams asked Brandon how he felt when he had learned that it was Cruz who committed this heinous crime, Brandon said that he “wasn’t surprised, but it was kind of unfortunate to hear.”
Then, Williams gets to the political side of the issue. He asks Brandon that if he were “a lawmaker in a decision-making position, how would you stop… the kind of thing that happened today? A kid who had been thrown out, comes back with a weapon and takes out whatever grievance he’s been walking around with in his head?”
In other words, he asked Brandon whether he would push for gun control or not. This is what Brandon replies with: “Gun-wise, I don’t think there’s any way to prevent it. If you outlaw guns, it just creates a higher demand for it. I think it has to do with mental health. If he’s been expelled three different times in three different schools, I think he should be helped out.”
How is it that a high school student from a school that was the target of a mass shooting is more cognizant of the ineffectiveness of gun control than politicians and the Left?
While the Left makes the same expected push for gun control, brings up tons of made up statistics, such as “there have been 18 school shootings in 2018,” which even the Washington Post debunks as “flat wrong”, Brandon here understands that the issue is not with guns. And while I wrote an article saying that the issue is with the hearts of people, it’s also important to note that the issue also lies in the minds of people.
Brandon details a kid with some obvious signs of mental instability. And the fact that Cruz had been kicked out of multiple schools in a short amount of time indicates the fact that Cruz needed help and urgently.
He understands that, had Cruz gotten some help, the likelihood of him shooting up the school and mass murdering 17 of his former classmates would’ve severely decreased. And if he was determined enough to shoot up the school, I think he would’ve been determined enough to procure a weapon no matter what the law says.
Which is why I roll my eyes every time some idiot Leftist or supposed media “conservative” says we should repeal the second amendment. Let me tell you, even if the 2nd Amendment were to be repealed and all registered guns were confiscated in America, shootings would still happen and in even higher rates.
And say, for example, that the government confiscated ALL guns, both registered and unregistered, the problem wouldn’t be solved, only delayed. And how is delaying these things any better? Mexican cartels would still bring guns into America, at even higher rates under this hypothesis. As Brandon said, outlawing guns only creates a higher demand for it. So there would be more demand for guns in the country and no repeal and confiscation would even come close to solving this problem.
The Left never thinks things through and is never realistic. Think of it this way. Weed is illegal in most states. In those states, police sometimes find any amount of weed on someone. Despite the fact that weed is illegal, these people still have some, however small the amount may be. They still have it despite the fact that weed can not be legally sold and possessed there (at least without a medicinal marijuana license).
Now, replace the word “weed” in that example with the word “gun”. Do you see where the problem is? Even with a full repeal of the 2nd Amendment and total confiscation of all guns in the U.S., people will still find a way to procure one or more.
And that’s the major reason why gun control doesn’t work. Gun control only applies to those who follow the law and the ones who follow the law tend not to be the ones shooting up schools, churches, theaters and such.
So focusing on gun control, the NRA and these things only detracts from the real issue at hand. The NRA is the only organization in the world that gets blamed for things that their members didn’t do. The NRA is painted as child-killers by the same people that support abortion. Painted as controlling bureaucrats with money despite the fact that Planned Parenthood donates far more money to politicians than the NRA does.
The NRA is not the culprit here. The AR-15 used in this shooting was not the culprit here. The manufacturers who made the gun are not the culprits here. The culprit here is Nikolas Cruz, mainly, but also the school system’s failure to help out a child who clearly needed help and the FBI’s failure to collect the clear evidence left behind by Cruz on social media and instead focusing on destroying a duly-elected President.
What we need is not a change in our gun laws (if anything, guns should be made more readily available). What we need is a change in culture. A change in people’s hearts. A change in people’s minds. I won’t go too much into detail here since I’ve already written an article on how we can prevent most mass shootings, but that’s where the answer to these tragedies lie.
Laws don’t change people’s hearts and minds. Christ does.
“I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.”
Author: Freddie D. Marinelli.
If you know me, you know that whenever a shooting similar to the most recent one at a Florida high school, I’m essentially forced to push back against the typical, brain-dead response from the Left: blaming the guns.
I don’t want to ever be in that situation. I don’t want to hear of another mass shooting. I don’t want to have to defend our 2nd amendment rights every time one happens because guns aren’t the problem here.
The Left is more than ok with shootings (a bold claim, I know, but hear me out) because they will always lead to the same argument: gun control. It’s the one thing they most look forward to out of these situations. And despite the fact that once more information comes in and we discover that no measure of gun control would’ve prevented this shooting or any other shooting, the Left doesn’t care. They continue to push for more gun control, ignoring all the facts as the Left typically does with any subject.
But if you want to prevent most mass shootings (maybe not all of them, but at least most), then pushing for gun control is not the way to go. Gun control only affects law-abiding citizens. Criminals tend not to give two hoots about laws, hence why they’re called criminals.
Schools are gun-free zones, and yet, they’re still attacked. That should be evidence enough for the Left to see that gun control doesn’t work. Guns aren’t allowed in schools but people still shoot up schools. No evil bastard of a criminal is ever going to read the “no guns allowed” sign and think “Well, the sign said guns aren’t allowed, so I’ll just turn back and head home, I guess.” Branding any place a “gun-free zone” is the equivalent of painting a massive target for anyone without a heart to attack.
Not to mention that it makes no logical sense to blame an inanimate object for this sort of tragedy. When a drunk driver hits someone and kills them, who goes to jail? The car? The beer? And who gets the blame for the incident? The car manufacturer? The bar that sold the guy a beer? The brewery that makes the beer?
No, the driver gets the blame. Not the car. Not the beer. The idiot behind the wheel. So then, I ask, why blame guns in these cases? Why blame the NRA? Why blame gun manufacturers? If you put a can of beer in a car with no one in it, chances are that you’re not going to get killed in that instance. If you put a gun, loaded or unloaded, in front of you on a table, chances are that it’s not going to come to life and shoot you.
For the same reason that a car is not going to come to life and run you over. For the same reason a fork isn’t going to come to life and force-feed you until you get fat.
These are all tools. What matters is how we use them.
And, considering the previous example of the car and the beer, that should also be a good indicator as to why gun control wouldn’t work. Drunk driving is illegal in every state, but it still happens. Now, I’m not saying that we should legalize drunk driving at all. That would be a very stupid idea. But the point I’m trying to make is that, despite the fact that we have laws against drunk driving, it still happens.
Despite the fact that weed is illegal in most states, people still possess it, have it, smoke it or deal it. Despite the fact that crack is illegal in every state, people can still get it, smoke it, and deal it.
Law abiding citizens (at least the smart ones) aren’t going to drink and drive. Law abiding citizens aren’t going to possess, smoke or deal weed (at least the ones in states that are still smart and weed is still illegal). Law abiding citizens aren’t going to procure crack, smoke it or deal it.
And as it is, it’s illegal to kill people. Law abiding citizens aren’t going to kill people. Law abiding citizens aren’t going to shoot up schools or concerts. Making guns illegal only makes law abiding citizens less safe.
Gun control only affects law abiding citizens, not criminals. If an evil person wants to get a gun, they will get one legally or illegally if the will is strong enough. We know that the evil bastard that shot up the Florida school got his gun (AR-15) legally and even had smoke grenades (which are also legal). But who’s to say that the guy wouldn’t have gotten his armament illegally if he was that determined to shoot up the school?
We also know that a user by the name of “Nikolas Cruz” (same name as the shooter) left a comment in a YouTube video that said: “I’m going to be a professional school shooter.” I don’t know why he wrote that, but the comment was reported to the FBI, who didn’t follow up on it (likely due to their witch hunt on Trump). Clearly, he was serious about the threat, so who’s to say any measure of gun control would’ve ultimately prevented the shooting?
Gun control wouldn’t have prevented any other shooting in the past and it wouldn’t prevent any in the future.
But given the title of the article, I know how to prevent most mass shootings: a Christian revival in the country.
I will wager you all of my money that not a single Christian, has ever shot up a school, theater, concert or any place with the intent to cause harm and death on people. All of the shootings that have ever happened anywhere in the world came from people who either didn’t believe in God or were Muslims.
Those are the only two culprits in any and all shootings. And what do they have in common? Neither is taught about the value of life.
According to data accumulated from the CDC and the Guttmacher Institute, just under 1 million abortions take place each year, with more than 55 million abortions having been performed since Roe v. Wade. Let me tell you, it’s not Christians killing these children.
So compare that to a report by CNN that “Guns kill nearly 1300 US children each year” (actual title), and tell me which sounds worse? Of course, I can’t ignore the phrasing by this CNN article, blaming the gun as always. And while I wish no child would ever die at the hands of an evil person with a gun, I also wish no child would ever be killed inside the safest place they should feel: their mother’s womb.
And just who are the people who push for the right to kill your own child? The same people that shed fake tears after every shooting. That’s precisely why I don’t believe anything they say for one second. They push for “protecting the children from guns” all-the-while pushing for women to have the right to kill their own children.
No Christian would ever have or perform an abortion. No Christian would ever shoot people. That’s why I’m saying that Christ is the answer for mass shootings. Christians know the value of life and know not to take one unless their own life is threatened.
The solution to mass shootings doesn’t lie in gun control legislation or debate. It lies in the hearts of the people. Only someone truly evil would do what Nikolas Cruz did. What the Vegas shooter did. What the Orlando nightclub shooter did. What Hitler did. What Stalin did. What Kim Jong-un does.
None of them had Christ in their hearts. And Christ is exactly what it takes to prevent mass shootings. Now, I understand that not everyone will come to Christ in this world, clearly. There will be people who will always be evil and never change. Those are the ones who will be likely to commit mass shootings. Which is precisely why good guys should be able to have guns. Gun control won't stop bad guys from getting guns, it will stop good guys from getting guns and protecting themselves and their loved ones.
Had Christ been in the hearts of any of the aforementioned people, they wouldn’t have done the horrible things they did. Again, the reason is because Christians understand the value of life. And with the Left constantly pushing for the right to end someone’s life in the womb, the Left utterly destroys the value of life. Or rather, they keep people from understanding the value of life.
People will put animals’ lives ahead of people’s lives, even ahead of their own. They will put trees’ lives ahead of people’s lives, even ahead of their own. Those people don’t understand the value of human life and its priority over the life of an animal or a tree.
Unless more people come to understand the value of life, mass shootings will only continue happening. And unless people start to understand what the Left is doing in diminishing the value of life, mass shootings will continue to happen, perhaps at even worse rates.
That’s why I say we need a Christian revival. If almost all people came to Christ and understood the value of life, FAR less shootings would occur, FAR less abortions would occur (both because of the understanding of the value of life and because people would understand the sanctity of marriage and sex within marriage) and the world would honestly be a far better place.
Alas, that’s not something that I expect will happen. I wish I could be optimistic over that, but I understand that not everyone in the world will become Christian, particularly since the Bible says as much. All I can do is hopefully get people to understand the value of life through articles like these and teach my future children the same Christian values I have.
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
Author: Freddie D. Marinelli.
Danielle Cross and Freddie Marinelli will bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...