I’m certain you remember the Christchurch mosque shooting that happened in New Zealand earlier this year, where 51 innocent souls were lost to a hateful bigot. In the response to the shooting, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said that the country’s gun laws “will change” and implemented a mandatory gun buy-back program targeting “military-style semi-automatic” weapons, with definitions that would include most pistols as well.
 
But surprise, surprise, virtually no one is giving up their guns. Reason, a conservative news outlet, reports that only 700 weapons have been turned in since the program began. That’s out of a possible total of 1.5 million firearms in the country (though it’s uncertain how many of those weapons fall under the established category of “military-style semi-automatic” weapons).
 
Philippa Yasbek of Gun Control NZ said: “These weapons are unlikely to be confiscated by police because they don’t know of their existence. These will become black-market weapons if their owners choose not to comply with the law and become criminals instead.”
 
And therein lies one of the biggest problems with gun control and why it doesn’t work: there is no effective way of enforcing the law. Establishing gun buy-back programs hardly works as most people would rather not surrender their personal defense weapons. Just look at Australia’s gun buy-back program. Often times, advocates of gun control will point to that as a good example of gun control working. For what reason, I am not certain, as it is estimated that only 20% of banned weapons were turned in. And like New Zealand’s, Australia’s was also mandatory, not optional (not that anyone cares, as it seems).
 
In effect, no gun buy-back program can actually be mandatory because there is no way to enforce it. The police would need to spend a ton of resources and money going house to house searching for weapons (which would also likely be rather ineffective, not to mention a massive violation of people’s rights, but that hardly matters to an authoritarian regime) because they don’t know where each particular type of weapon is. In the meantime, this gives nefarious people ample opportunity to commit heinous crimes like the one perpetrated by the bigot who killed over 50 people in a mosque.
 
Which brings me to the other major reason as to why gun control doesn’t work: criminals couldn’t care less about the law anyway.
 
A New Zealand news outlet even reported that gang leaders publicly stated they wouldn’t be giving up their weapons in accordance to the “mandatory” buy-back program. The only people that would actually follow the program are those the government doesn’t have to worry about: the law-abiding populace. So this puts innocent, law-abiding people at a massive disadvantage against those who couldn’t care less about laws.
 
In case this was not made aware to the New Zealand PM or anyone else in the government, MURDER IS ILLEGAL! That sure as hell didn’t stop the Christchurch shooter, did it? That doesn’t stop other evil people from committing that same crime, does it? Of course, that isn’t to say that murder ought to be made legal. That would be absolutely insane. But that is to make the point that criminals, by definition, don’t follow the law.
 
Is it really any surprise that gang leaders, or any other criminals, would not follow the gun buy-back program? Did the PM really expect criminals to say “gee, our wonderful and great Prime Minister is making a lot of sense here. I have been entirely reformed of my egregious ways of criminality and will follow this clearly well-thought-out mandatory gun buy-back program because I am now a better person”? Is the NZ PM Dora the Explorer or something? Because you would have to be a little girl in fantasy land to believe something like that would occur.
 
Criminals, as I have said COUNTLESS times in the past, don’t care about the law. Taking away people’s guns only puts them in serious danger and at a serious disadvantage because all of a sudden, someone that wants to do something bad has their gun, but those who abide by the law then find themselves without a gun to protect themselves.
 
But of course, as we can see is the case in New Zealand and Australia (and really everywhere else that has a “mandatory” gun buy-back program), most people would rather run the risk of being labeled a criminal than run the risk of being left defenseless against a shooter. And in that case, if someone wishes to fight back and save some people’s lives, the good guy with a gun runs the risk of being put in prison FOR BEING A HERO! So the likelihood of someone running to the rescue is lessened, while the likelihood of someone going on a murderous rampage only increases.
 
Only take a look at the American city with the heaviest gun control legislations: Chicago. Do you want to know how that city spent its Fourth of July weekend? With 66 people shot and 5 killed. This is about on par with many weekends in Chicago in the past few years. A city where most law-abiding citizens find it extremely difficult to legally get a gun and most criminals laugh at the idiotic politicians that do them a favor in making their bloodbaths easier to perform.
 
And the argument that people are getting guns outside of Chicago falls flat because that also points out the flaws of gun control: why wouldn’t there be more death around Chicago than within it if gun control is supposed to end these sorts of massacres?
 
So no amount of gun control, even gun buy-back programs that are mandatory or even full-on confiscations actually work. They are heavily ineffective in terms of money and action, do more to harm people than help them, puts them in more danger than before, and most people would rather be labeled as criminals by their own government for wishing to protect themselves than run the risk of being totally defenseless in the unfortunate circumstance that they would actually need to have a gun.
 
Virtually no one wants to give up their guns because they know the sort of risk they run henceforth.
 
But I am curious to see where New Zealand goes from here. Obviously, the PM’s ever-so-popular-with-the-media-and-people-who-don’t-know-jack plan to force people to return their guns for some sort of monetary exchange has failed. And I doubt the PM would be in any way willing to reverse course and be more lax on gun control in the future. Will we see heavier action against guns by the NZ government, or simply inaction until the next shooting happens? Either way, whatever action the New Zealand government takes in the future, if it is to implement more gun control legislation, it will be entirely ineffective in a number of ways.
 
Proverbs 28:16
“A ruler who lacks understanding is a cruel oppressor, but he who hates unjust gain will prolong his days.”
 
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.

Not that I find this surprising whatsoever, but what he actually says I feel must be addressed as he only continues to lie and mislead about gun laws in America.
 
Speaking at VTEX DAY, a digital convention in Sao Paulo, Brazil, last week, former President Barack Obama spoke about the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting that claimed the lives of 20 children and 6 adults and said it was the “hardest day of his life,” according to the UK Daily Mail. Okay, fair enough. It was a horrible tragedy that was heavy on everyone. The problem, however, comes in the fact that he, like every other ignorant Leftist, tries to blame the gun and gun laws in America as being culpable for the shooting.
 
“Gun laws in the United States don’t make much sense. Anybody can buy any weapon, anytime without, you know, without much if any regulation. They can buy over the Internet. They can buy machine guns.”
 
A rather short and concise statement, but full of lies and inaccuracies. First, not just “anybody” can buy a weapon. Depending on the state, there is a legal age limit for purchasing a weapon. Second, you can’t just buy a weapon “anytime… without much if any regulation.” That is the biggest lie in the entire statement.
 
Background checks can often be quite extensive, depending on the state. Going back to the original point of not “anybody” being able to purchase a weapon, one cannot even obtain a gun license (where one is required at least) if one is a convicted felon, is a fugitive from justice or has been proven to have some severe mental disorder that could lead to violence against another or oneself. So you absolutely cannot buy a gun “anytime”. Yes, it is possible to walk into a gun store, run the background check and it would finish within the day (often takes multiple days) and then purchase a gun, but it’s not like there is absolutely no regulation behind the purchase.
 
Third, not just anybody can buy “any weapon”. It is possible to purchase a machine gun, but that process includes tons of paperwork, a very in-depth federal background check, adding the purchaser’s name to a national registry and a nifty cost of $10,000 for the weapon on its own. And the legal inventory only includes weapons made before 1986, so no new weapons. Oh, and this entire process takes almost a year and a half to complete, so it’s not like you can just walk into a gun store, purchase a fully-automatic “military-style assault rifle” and walk out of it like it’s Grand Theft Auto (the video game series, not the crime).
 
Then there’s the claim about buying guns over the Internet. Technically, it’s true, but it hardly works the way it sounds. From the way people talk about it, you’d think the NRA would make a personal delivery to whomever purchased the gun online to the person’s house, or like how you would receive a package from Amazon. Far from it, as the NRA does not sell weapons and the gun is delivered to a gun store, where the process would have to be the same as if one were to walk into the store off the street. They still have to file all the paperwork, run all the background checks, etc.
 
Now, there is one more thing that I would like to point out. Obama has often said that his inability to restrict gun laws as much as possible is the “greatest frustration of his presidency,” according to the UK Daily Mail.
 
And while there were multiple times when he wished certain gun control resolutions would pass, only for them to fail in Republican-controlled Congress, there was a time when the Democrats held the Presidency, the Senate and the House of Representatives. That was after the 2008 election, when Obama was first elected. And if you remember, following the Sen. Ted Stevens case, the Democrats held a supermajority in the Senate.
 
Truly, this was the time for the Democrats, who usually manage to work together pretty well, to completely change our country’s foundation if they so desired. They could’ve swiftly passed bill after bill, changing whatever they wanted without a care in the world as to what the Republicans said. Obama and the Democrats could’ve done some serious damage to gun rights in America during those two years. So why didn’t they?
 
That’s really more of a rhetorical question than anything else. Research can only take me so far as to the reasons for this. I was too young at the time to really have paid attention to anything outside my own little world of Power Rangers and video games, so someone older might more easily be able to explain to me why they didn’t do more than they actually did.
 
Now, from what I know, I suppose one explanation could be prioritizing Obamacare, but that didn’t get passed until 2010, and even then, it had to be passed in two different bills, which the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy made harder, as that meant the Democrats would only have 59 votes, just shy of the 60 needed to pass anything at the time. Afterwards, Harry Reid essentially decided to employ the “nuclear” option, at the time called the “Reconciliation Rule”, in order to pass another bill to include into the ACA. So maybe the Democrats had tried to prioritize Obamacare, but again, that didn’t get passed until 2010 and they surely tried to get other stuff done, particularly with a supermajority, so there really isn’t much of an excuse for them here.
 
Now, that’s not to say that more heavy gun control legislation passing while the Democrats were essentially kings would’ve prevented any further shootings. Most of the time, guns used in shootings are illegally acquired, either by stealing them from someone else or getting one through some illegal black market. Whatever the case may be, legislation doesn’t stop a criminal from committing crimes. By definition, a criminal breaks the law. By “making it harder for criminals to get a gun”, that makes it harder for millions of other people who do not commit crimes to get a gun. And at the end of the day, these gun control legislations do not really make it harder for bad people to get a gun. Again, one can acquire a gun almost in any illegal way and these people literally do not care about what any law says.
 
Murder has been illegal for millennia in pretty much all countries ever, and yet, people still do it. Do you really think a criminal will care about Congress passing a bill that makes it harder to acquire guns legally? They are HAPPY when it happens because that means that THEY have guns but their targets have to go through more extreme lengths to get one through legal means.
 
So if there is one thing I can agree with Obama on is that U.S. gun laws really don’t make sense, but not in the same way that he thinks. It doesn’t make sense to punish the law-abiding for things they didn’t do. It doesn’t make sense to treat law-abiding people as criminals and potential (or actual) terrorists. It doesn’t make sense to force people who obey the law to jump through hoops just to protect themselves and their families.
 
But apart from that, everything Obama says is a complete lie or highly misleading. But then again, this is the former Liar-in-Chief we’re talking about, so what would we expect? I mean, for crying out loud, he’s tried on more than one occasion to take credit for Trump’s economy and he’s infamous for the line: “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”!
 
Proverbs 12:22
“Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are his delight.”
 
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.

Looking over some articles to draw inspiration from, I came across an article on the Daily Caller talking about what is currently happening in Venezuela and the fact that the Venezuelan government, under former dictator Hugo Chavez, banned private gun ownership less than a decade ago.
 
Perhaps the biggest reason I say this now is because Venezuela might face a military coup d’état in the near future, as Interim President Juan Guaido has called for a military uprising, dubbed Operacion Libertad, against the Maduro regime.
 
Ever since Maduro’s bogus “re-election”, where Maduro imprisoned opponents and overall made it harder for people to run against him and garnering more votes than were cast, the Venezuelan people have seen protest after protest, often turning into rioting with people throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails at armed forces that shut these protesters down.
 
In June of 2012, the Chavez regime banned all private gun ownership, only allowing for the military, police and security contractors to purchase weapons from a state-owned gun manufacturer. The reason given for this sort of law? “Improve security and cut crime” according to a BBC story reporting on the new law.
 
Under the guise of curbing the country’s crime rates, the government banned guns. Does that sound familiar?
 
And anyone who is found to be disobeying this law faces 20 years in prison.
 
Of course, that gun ban did nothing to lower crime rates. Quite the opposite, as crime rates only soared since the gun ban went into effect.
 
Luis Farias, a Venezuelan citizen, told Fox News: “Now the criminal mother is unleashed. Trying to ban guns didn’t take guns off the streets. Nobody cares about the law; the criminals don’t care about the law.”
 
Javier Vanegas, a Venezuelan teacher forced into exile to Ecuador, told Fox News: “Guns would have served as a vital pillar to remaining a free people, or at least able to put up a fight. The government security forces, at the beginning of this debacle, knew they had no real opposition to their force. Once things were this bad, it was a clear declaration of war against an unarmed population… Venezuelans evolved to always hope that our government would be non-tyrannical, non-violator of human rights, and would always have a good enough control of criminality.”
 
But therein lies, the problem, Javier. When you leave your hopes upon the government’s shoulders to do something, or in this case, to not do something like becoming tyrannical, you know you’re in a terrible position.
 
Given the opportunity, given the chance, a government will always become tyrannical. Why? Well, the answer is similar to that of many questions: Man is evil by NATURE.
 
People want power. Once they have such power, they crave for more of it and will not give it up easily. The gun ban was advertised as being an effort to bring down crime. What an absolute joke. In reality, it was an effort to keep people from being able to rise up against the socialist government. And it worked like a charm.
 
Javier himself notes that guns would’ve helped the people to remain free or at least fight back. That was the point of the gun ban: to keep people from being able to fight back. Now, the people are left starving, thirsty, without electricity, gas and many, MANY other things and can hardly do a thing about it.
 
They have to rely on Guaido succeeding and not turning into a dictator himself. They have to rely on the military taking their side in order to be free. Both are massive “ifs”.
 
I don’t know much about Guaido. He certainly says the right things, but everyone does. After all, Chavez advertised the gun ban as being an effort against crimes and the like. He said the right things, didn’t he? There was no way he could’ve come out and said: “yeah, we’re going to take your guns so you can’t fight back against us in the event we become too tyrannical, which you honestly should see coming considering this gun ban is even being talked about.”
 
Latin America’s history is marred by civil wars and coups. And at the end of the day, each “new” government wound up being the same old tyrannical one the previous one was, but with a few changes here and there. Only time will tell whether or not Guaido is really anti-socialist or if he’s just trying to get power for himself. Certainly, the temptation would be there.
 
I mean, George Washington had the option of becoming King of the United States instead of becoming President of the United States. Thankfully, he was a Christian and was humble enough and wise enough to understand that there was no way this new country would survive if after fighting off a tyrannical king, they placed in his stead a different one. But the option was there at one time. Again, I don’t know much about Guaido, but I am not willing to bet that he’s a George Washington. He might be or he might not be, but Latin Americans have seen this song and dance before.
 
The Venezuelan people have no other option than to hope and pray that Guaido is who he says he is; that he is not going to be simply replacing the socialist Maduro regime with his own, changing just about nothing and enjoying basically unopposed power.
 
Again, he says the right things. He advertises himself as a free-market capitalist, if his “Venezuela To Come” plan is anything to go by. So there is at least SOME hope he might do the right thing. But again, time will tell.
 
As it is now, Guaido has called for a military uprising against Maduro. For that he needs military support, which he might have at least to some extent. In a recent article where I at least somewhat briefly discussed the Mueller report, I mentioned that what is necessary for a successful coup is the military backing you up. If Guaido has such support from the military, Maduro’s days are almost certainly numbered.
 
So that’s an “if” question already taken care of, if there is enough support in the military for Guaido. But until it is proven otherwise, Guaido might not actually be any different from Maduro or any other socialist. He can say all the right things, but his actions as leader of Venezuela will show us his true colors.
 
Of course, I hope he will do the right things. But it is not a great situation to be in to have to rely on a military coup and a politician who knows how to say the right things (something they are often trained to do) to grant people their freedom. If Guaido succeeds in ousting Maduro, one of the tell-tale signs for his administration being capitalistic or socialistic will be whether or not he lifts the gun ban.
 
And as far as the United States goes, as the title says, the current state of Venezuela is what you get if we lose our guns. If we lose the 2nd Amendment, the rest will soon follow.
 
We have guns to protect ourselves, whether that means from a criminal or from a tyrannical government.
 
Isaiah 41:10
“Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you I will uphold you with my righteous right hand.”
 
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.

It is not very often that a member of the media will willfully call out an elected Democrat, much less a Presidential candidate. However, in a recent CNN “State of the Union” show, Jake Tapper interviewed Presidential candidate Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), discussing Swalwell’s signature campaign issue: gun control.
 
Tapper began by saying: “So, gun control is the central plank in your campaign. You wrote last year: ‘We should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons. We should buy back weapons from all those who choose to abide by the law. And we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.’ Criminal prosecution for keeping assault weapons. What’s the punishment for people who don’t hand in their guns? Do they go to jail?”
 
Based on Tapper quoting Swalwell, I can already comment so much on that, but I’ll hold off for now.
 
Swalwell replied: “Well, Jake, they would, but I also offer an alternative, which would be to keep them at a hunting club or shooting range. And the reason I have proposed this is because these weapons are so devastating. I have seen this as a prosecutor in the cases that I have prosecuted. We have seen these in the school shootings, from Sandy Hook to Parkland… But it’s not just the violence that they have caused. It’s the fear, the immeasurable fear, that our children live in, because they are still on our streets. I want to get rid of that fear. I want to do what Australia did and New Zealand just recently did. I think this issue just needs some bold leadership to do it.”
 
Again, I could say so much right now, but I really want to get to the main point of this article, which is Tapper rebuking Swalwell with one particular fact that the Left always chooses to ignore.
 
Tapper said: “I know you know this, but the vast majority of gun-related deaths in this country are not related to these semiautomatic assault weapons – whatever you want to call them – and the vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens who have purchased these weapons legally and use them safely. One of the most frequent attacks on this issue from President Trump and the Republicans is that Democrats want to take away your guns. But isn’t it fair to say you actually do want to take away people’s guns?”
 
This is some of the best journalism I have seen in a long time. Granted, the fake news media sets the bar embarrassingly low, but still. What Tapper says is correct: the vast majority of gun-related deaths in America are not due to semi-automatic rifles or “assault” weapons. Not to mention that the overwhelming majority of gun owners purchase their guns legally, follow every law and regulation and use their weapons responsibly. But perhaps the cherry on top is the fact that Tapper does challenge Swalwell (something I have rarely ever seen a member of the media do towards a Democrat) and proposes that it’d be fair to say that Swalwell and the Democrats do, in fact, want to take away people’s guns because THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT THIS GUY IS CAMPAIGNING ON!
 
But Swalwell’s response is actually quite hilariously bad.
 
Swalwell replied: “You know, keep your pistols, keep your long rifles, keep your shotguns. I want the most dangerous weapons, these weapons of war, out of the hands of the most dangerous people.”
 
I’m betting he was a bit blindsided by such a challenging question from Tapper.
 
But now, as I promised, I will get down to the nitty gritty stuff and fully challenge and dismantle Swalwell’s entire campaign issue.
 
Let’s return first to the quote Tapper used, specifically this part: “We should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law.”
 
Key words here are “all who choose to abide by the law”. What about those who do not abide by the law? Yes, I know Tapper asked if they’d go to jail and Swalwell basically confirmed that, but let me ask you something: how exactly would you go about doing that?
 
Registered weapons would be easy enough to at least keep tabs on, but how do you enforce this law? By having police officers check every single household that has registered weapons to check if all of the weapons have been turned in? According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) there are between 5 to 10 million AR-15 rifles that are legally owned in America. But this might be a bit of a low-ball estimate and it certainly does not include the number of illegally owned guns in America, such as some of the ones used during the Las Vegas massacre.
 
Those who abide by the law would likely abide by this law as well, but that leaves such “assault rifles” largely in the hands of those who do not abide by the law. And as it turns out, those who commit crimes, including shootings, don’t tend to care much for what the law says.
 
Now, the next thing I want to mention is that Tapper is certainly right about the vast majority of gun-related deaths not being related to semiautomatic rifles. According to data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting research, between 2010 and 2014, there were approximately 43,000 murders in America where a gun was used. A full 70% of those murders were from handguns, while a measly 3.6% were from rifles.
 
And according to the Daily Wire: “Even if one takes the 21.5% (9,228) of gun deaths that were committed using unclassified firearms, assumes that half of them were rifles (a very generous assumption given the statistics), and adds that to the 3.6% of gun deaths in which rifles were identified as the weapon used, that still amounts to just over a quarter (25.1%) of total firearm murders in the United States.”
 
In other words, even if you give some of those statistics the benefit of the doubt, you still get nowhere close to solving the issue of “gun violence” since semiautomatic rifles are a very tiny portion of the gun-related deaths in America. And according to EveryTown USA, an organization that is very supportive of gun control, about two-thirds “of all gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides,” with the problem of firearm suicide rates increasing by 19% over the past decade.
 
So not only are homicides far less frequent than suicides (by using a firearm), but of those homicides, a very small amount of those are done by the types of weapons Swalwell, other Democrats and 99% of the media want to take away.
 
And the last thing I want to talk about here is returning to Swalwell’s embarrassing response to Tapper’s challenging question. He says that we can keep our pistols, long rifles (supposedly he means hunting rifles) and shotguns. But he wants “the most dangerous weapons, these weapons of war, out of the hands of the most dangerous people.”
 
First, statistically speaking, rifles are not “the most dangerous weapons” if so few of them are ever actually used in homicides.
 
Second, these are not “weapons of war”. They LOOK like weapons used by the military, but that doesn’t mean anything. In an article from last year, I showed you a couple of pictures of two different bolt-action hunting rifles. One looked like your typical hunting rifle and the other looked like one a special forces unit would use on terrorists or something. If you remember, the one that looked like your typical hunting rifle actually used a higher caliber round than the “military-style” one. Meaning that the typical hunting rifle was more powerful and more deadly than the one people think looks like a military weapon.
 
The point of that is to say that 1) an AR-15 is not a “weapon of war” because no soldier would use the AR-15 over the standard M16, M4, SCAR or ACTUAL weapons of war. The AR-15 is modeled after the M16 but it is semi-automatic (M16 can fire full-auto or burst, depending on the model), lower pressure and meant for civilian use. And 2), just because a weapon looks like it could be used in the military does not mean it would be used or is more powerful than a gun that might not look like it’d be used by the military.
 
Again, those bolt-action rifles looked different, but the more “plain” or “civilian” looking weapon was actually more powerful than the scary “military-style” rifle.
 
Third, him saying he wants to keep these types of guns away from the most dangerous people stands in contradiction with his supposed desire to have law-abiding citizens give up their guns. Again, those who abide by the law will not commit crimes, so they are not the most dangerous people.
 
What Swalwell wants to implement will do the exact opposite of what he says it’s meant to do: it will take guns away from the least dangerous people – those who abide by the law – while leaving those who do not care one wit about the law with better guns than law-abiding citizens.
 
His policies would not take away guns from “the most dangerous people”. It would take them away from those who need them most. From those who actually follow the law and would not commit atrocities like Sandy Hook or Parkland.
 
So his policies are flawed and his reasoning for his policies is flawed as well. But I guess that just sums up the entirety of the American Left, doesn’t it?
 
Proverbs 18:2
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
 
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.

Among the many reasons that socialism always fails is the fact that it is wholly unrealistic and requires far too many things to be perfect and work right for it to actually be effective at all. By the same token, gun control doesn’t work for many of the same reasons: it is unrealistic to believe passing gun control laws will make those who don’t care about the laws suddenly care about them or work with them willingly.
 
The United Kingdom and especially London have some of the strictest gun control laws imaginable, and yet, shootings still happen, other crimes like knife crimes happen and some of the worst people you could think of have access to guns innocent civilians have no hope of being able to stand up against.
 
Yesterday, a guy in his late teens was fatally shot in London just minutes after another man was stabbed in his head (non-fatally, somehow) elsewhere in the city. The crimes don’t appear to be related, however.
 
Still, that is far from the only case of a violent crime perpetrated with a knife and the shooting goes to show that gun control laws simply can’t prevent shootings and gun-related killings in general.
 
But that’s not the only reason I am talking about this. If anything, that’s the secondary reason. The primary reason is the fact that just a day before said shooting, Metropolitan Police conducted a raid in an industrial estate near Bretts Farm, Romford Road. This raid found quite the arsenal of weaponry including “three AK47 assault rifles, one sub-machine gun, two shotguns, one revolver, one self-loading pistol, hundreds of rounds of ammunition and 22 grenades.”
 
Officers also found “a large number of stolen vehicles, several kilos of Class A drugs, and a cannabis farm.”
 
Now, I don’t know gun laws in Britain as much as I do in the United States, but if American laws are anything to go by, and knowing that British laws are even more extreme, I can’t imagine some, if any, of these things are legal. AK47 assault rifles (aka automatic rifles) certainly are not legal. Sub-machine guns typically are automatic weapons, so I can’t imagine that’s legal, but one can get a sub-machine-gun-like weapon (like an UZI) if it is semi-auto. Shotguns might be the outlier here. Handguns, however, have been banned since 1997 and grenades are explosives, so there’s no way those are legal.
 
According to Business Insider, people can own shotguns and rifles as long as they have an appropriate license. However, shotguns have the restriction that “they can’t hold more than three shotgun shells – including the one in the chamber if it’s a pump-action or semiautomatic shotgun.”
 
And while you are legally able to buy semiautomatic rifles, their caliber can be no higher than .22, which isn’t much.
 
Still, while you can buy one, you have to give the government a “good reason” to buy one. Business Insider says that “hunting or being a member of a shooting club, for example, might be seen as good reasons.” However, “self-defense won’t be considered a valid reason.”
 
So if you are living in London, for the most part, you won’t have a good reason to buy a rifle. Well, wanting to protect yourself should be seen as a valid reason, but these people are insanely stupid or simply don’t care, so your peasant arse can die for all they care.
 
And again, all handguns are illegal, so there isn’t much chance of defending yourself in the city, unless you want to risk doing something illegal yourself.
 
That is the line criminals, by definition, aren’t afraid to cross. They won’t care what the law says. If the law says they can’t get a gun, they smile because that means law-abiding citizens are further restricted. If a bad guy wants to get a gun badly enough, he will find a way to get one.
 
I’ve used this example before, but I think it’d be good to use it again: how many times has someone used a gun that didn’t belong to them? How many times has a shooter used a gun that belonged to either a friend or family member? How do you regulate that? By punishing the owner of the gun? They had nothing to do with the person’s actions, especially if the shooter stole the owner’s gun.
 
And it’s not like that’s the only way to acquire a gun. There are black markets, where you can buy any gun you want. How else would someone be able to get assault rifles, sub-machine guns, handguns and grenades as the Metropolitan officers found in their recent raid?
 
All types of shady characters from gang members to even terrorists use this sort of system. A gang member told the Evening Standard that “in the last 10 years, since the Somalis and the Congolese came to London, they taught us a whole new level of violence… These people had seen family members mutilated so when they said, ‘I’m gonna smash you up,’ us guys would be shouting, ‘Yo blud, wot you mean?’ and they would just pull out a blade and juk [stab] you in the chest. It upped the speed and level of violence for us British-born guys. We had to arm up to protect ourselves. It created an upward spiral.”
 
So regardless of what the law says, gang members and foreign terrorists are able to gather weapons no law-abiding citizen is allowed to own.
 
A number of reasons can be given as to why London in particular is circling the drain in terms of security. I would say that the fact police are forced to look into non-violent “hate crimes” as more of a priority than other things and the fact that the central government often cuts police budgets are the most important reasons. The fact that the U.K. is also taking in multitudes of immigrants particularly from places like Syria certainly doesn’t help.
 
Despite what the local or federal government tries to do in the U.K., chaos seems to be a prominent sight. While it’s not quite apocalypse-level of chaos and unruliness, the fact that stabbings and other violent crimes happen so often in London shows how weak the government is to try and maintain order.
 
Ronald Reagan once said that the government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives. The U.K. government is adamant about doing the exact opposite, focusing on crimes of feelings rather than crimes of violence.
 
And when they do focus on crimes of violence, they take all the wrong steps to ensure they are not lessened, only helping bad guys continue to do those things. You know what would really bring down the knife crime rates? ALLOWING PEOPLE TO PROTECT THEMSELVES! Allow people to own handguns! Allow people to say protecting themselves is the reason they want to do it!
 
Because seriously, that reason should be enough to get a gun. The government is essentially slapping their people in the face by saying protecting yourself is not a “good reason”. “You want to make sure the rampant knife crimes going on are kept to a minimum for yourself and your family? You want to be able to protect yourself from someone who wants to cause you harm? Well, screw you!” is essentially what the U.K. government tells their people.
 
Gun control never works. Look at any place in the world where there is strict gun control and you will see that. New Zealand recently had a shooting even though they have some of the strictest gun control in the world. They are now moving to have even more gun control than before, outright banning rifles and forcing people to turn theirs in. Do you want to know who’s not going to obey those laws? PEOPLE LIKE THE DAMN SHOOTER!
 
No area is ever made safer by the confiscation and restriction of guns for those who obey the law.
 
Matthew 15:19
“For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.”
 
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.

Last week, a gunman (whose name I refuse to share) opened fire in two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, leaving nearly 50 dead and over 40 injured in what is likely New Zealand’s deadliest shooting.
 
And while one can easily look at this shooting with the same lenses as other shootings, wherein a debate about gun control is sparked, one document from the shooter himself reveals the very plan and intentions he had upon committing this egregious act.
 
The shooter’s 74-page manifesto is… confusing, to say the least (probably because he might have meant it to be a massive troll to exploit the media’s worst habits, but it’s worth taking a look at). He calls himself a fascist and a socialist, says he’s for “environmentalism”, “worker’s rights” and “responsible markets” but also lambasts and attacks communists, Marxists, and Antifa as “anti-white scum”. And according to Breitbart News, “elsewhere, the shooter writes that ‘under some definitions’, he is both on the right and the left.”
 
The shooter also writes that “conservatism is dead, thank god” and calls it “corporatism in disguise”. He says that conservatives “don’t even believe in the race, they don’t have the gall to say race exists” and “don’t even care if it does”. “The notion of a racial future or destiny is as foreign to them as social responsibilities.”
 
The shooter also seemingly trolls people in his manifesto, further telling me he meant for this manifesto to be shown to people, as he seemingly blames video games for his actions, saying “Spyro the Dragon 3 taught me ethno-nationalism” and “Fortnite trained me to be a killer.”
 
The shooter also trolls the readers by saying that conservative pundit Candace Owens, who is neither a white nationalist (she’s black) nor a supporter of violence, is the “person that has influenced me above all.” In a video he posted online (by the way, he used Facebook’s livestreaming service to shoot footage of a little bit of his shooting), he tells viewers to “subscribe to PewDiePie”, the YouTube channel of a man named Felix Kjellberg who has the most subscribed-to account in YouTube, with nearly 90 million subscribers and someone who seldom dabbles in politics.
 
But beyond the contradicting ideologies he pertains to have and the classless attempt at linking high-profile people who have nothing to do with him (which, again, might both be trolling of some sort), perhaps the single biggest indicator that this s.o.b. is an evil jerk (as if killing 50 people and wounding 40 others wasn’t enough), he also states his intentions behind the shooting.
 
In the manifesto, he says that his intention is “to spark a civil war in the United States by triggering crackdowns on the Second Amendment,” according to Breitbart News. He says he intends this shooting to lead to “fracturing” the U.S. along “cultural and racial lines.”
 
He intends to “create conflict between the two ideologies within the United States on the ownership of firearms in order to further the social, cultural, political, and racial divide within the United States… This conflict over the 2nd Amendment and the attempted removal of firearms rights will eventually result in a civil war that will Balkanize the U.S. along political, cultural, and most importantly racial lines.”
 
The shooter also predicts his attack will lead to “calls for the removal of gun rights from whites in the United States… that is the plan all along.” He also states that, while he could’ve used a variety of methods for carrying out his terrorist attack, he chose guns “for the effect it would have on social discourse, the extra media coverage they would provide and the effect it would have on the politics of the United States and thereby the political situation of the world… With enough pressure the left wing within the United States will seek to abolish the second amendment, and the right wing within the U.S. will see this as an attack on their very freedom and liberty. The attempted abolishment of rights by the left will result in a dramatic polarization of the people in the United States and eventually a fracturing of the U.S. along cultural and racial lines.”
 
All of this is what makes me think that, while much of this manifesto might be a troll to exploit the media, there might be some elements of truth to it.
 
Now, regardless of whatever ideology he says he has, whether he calls himself a fascist or a socialist while attacking communists and Marxists (which are all basically the same, but with slight differences), and while he appears to be a white supremacist all-the-while hoping white people in the U.S. will have their guns taken away from them, one thing is absolutely certain: his heart is nowhere near Christ.
 
The Left has already fallen for this guy’s trick of heavily politicizing this attack and may even see this as an opportunity to really move in on the 2nd Amendment (even though New Zealand’s gun laws are incredibly strict, so no new gun legislation enacted here would do anything either, not that the Left cares about that at all). So sadly enough, this poor excuse for a human being will likely be successful in further driving apart this country.
 
And it’s this precise desire (not to mention the fact that HE KILLED 50 PEOPLE AND WOUNDED 40 OTHERS) that tells me just how far his heart is from Christ. This is someone who literally wants to sow discord and chaos in the entire world.
 
While he does not like Muslims at all and calls them “invaders” on “foreign lands”, it’s clear to everyone who takes the time to even just skim the highlights of his manifesto that what drove him to do this was not mere Islamophobia.
 
He knew very well that a shooting in a mosque would horrify the Left far more than any other setting. I mean, New York and L.A. both upped security in mosques for a bit soon after the shooting took place. Now, I don’t blame them for having done it, it’s perfectly sensible. But when have you heard of them doing this when someone shot up a church?
 
Islam is the Left’s favorite religion, as evidenced by the fact that even in America’s deadliest shooting and what can only be considered to be a terrorist attack, the Orlando night club shooting, the Left was quick to not only blame the gun but also try and shift blame away from the shooter himself because he was Muslim. The media didn’t even dare try and call it a terrorist attack. Meanwhile, this shooter attacks two mosques and ABC News was quick to label it a terrorist attack.
 
There’s no doubt that it is, but the media and the Left will cover for Muslims more than anything else. The shooter likely knows this and that is likely the biggest reason for choosing them as his target.
 
As a result, the Left will likely be more willing to go after people’s guns so as to prevent something like this ever happening again (at least, that’s their story).
 
This attempt at gun grabbing, depending on how fierce it is, will definitely lead to an even bigger divide than what we already have.
 
Upon reading the highlights of the manifesto, particularly reading the parts about creating a divide and a fracture in America along cultural and racial lines, I can’t help but think the guy’s late for the party. Obama already did a pretty good job at dividing the nation along cultural and racial lines. We currently live in a society where being white is considered a bad thing and cause for discrimination, believing it to be some sort of justice for the centuries of white oppression over minorities (which were all largely caused by Democrats, but I digress).
 
This country is already heavily-divided along cultural, racial and political lines. In one corner, you have conservative right-wingers who love capitalism and see America as a beacon of hope, with liberty and justice for all. In the other corner, you have socialist left-wingers who love socialism/communism and see America not only as a mistake that never should’ve happened but as a threat to the progress of mankind and the planet itself.
 
These two corners are irreconcilable, in my mind. And to this shooter, it was easy enough to further fracture by committing this heinous act of terror and violence.
 
The ironic thing is that, upon literally writing these things down, he reveals his entire hand and it becomes easier to negate it… at least, in theory.
 
To sane people, they will read this over and think “okay, let’s just not politicize this and not have this guy get what he wanted, otherwise he’ll win.” But to the Left, they might see this (at least the ones who care enough to read it over) and they will think it’s the perfect opportunity to do just that.
 
After the Parkland shooting, many on the Left were up in arms (pun somewhat intended) about guns and a supposed lack of gun control in America (which likely wouldn’t have prevented this shooting anyway) and the divide further grew. Granted, part of the reason is that the FBI and Broward County Sheriff’s office basically ALLOWED for this shooting to happen in the first place, but the damage was done.
 
The Left shamelessly made that shooting to be their greatest asset. And they could do the same thing here. They won’t care that they’d be doing exactly what the shooter wants them to do. If they see an opportunity to strip freedoms and rights from people, they’ll take it.
 
I don’t know just how far they’ll go here, and I seriously doubt they’ll get anywhere near to abolishing the 2nd Amendment, but this does provide them with a stepping stone towards further growing their power.
 
Thankfully, the idiot shooter wrote this manifesto to tell us exactly what he planned and what kind of heartless monster he is (again, that’s without even mentioning the mere fact he slain around 50 people and wounded dozens of others). And yes, while I did establish that much of this was likely trolling the media, his racism and his intentions may be genuine. Certainly, division is what comes from this attack and he might know this as well. The fact that he acknowledges this will lead to division leads me to believe these intentions were real.
 
In any case, if the Left wishes to brand him as a right-winger, there is evidence against that. I wouldn’t necessarily brand him a left-winger either given what he wrote against the Left, but he’s definitely not a right-winger.
 
However, what I will brand him as is a heartless, Christ-less, evil man looking to exploit the racial divides in the world, taking up the mantle of a white supremacist (and he very well may be that anyway) and sowing discord with his evil actions.
 
I pray for the families of those slain and hope that the writing of this manifesto will lead to people realizing what he was doing and not seek to grant this sicko’s wishes.
 
Romans 12:21
“Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”
 
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.

Whenever I discussed gun control and the topic of Great Britain came up, I often times would point out their massive knife violence problem to suggest that bad people will do bad things regardless of tool and would often joke about the U.K. introducing “knife control” legislation to try and “combat” it, which would help about as much as gun control typically does.
 
But one British politician, Tory MP Scott Mann, made a suggestion on social media that the U.K. implement a knife registry like they do with guns and to plant GPS trackers on every knife.
 
Specifically, he wrote: “Every knife sold in the UK should have a gps tracker fitted in the handle. It’s time we had a national database like we do with guns. If you’re carrying it around you had better have a bloody good explanation, obvious exemptions for fishing, etc.”
 
While this is not exactly an official proposal, it is at least testing the waters to see if Parliament should go forward with something similar, but obviously with far greater detail.
 
But all this got was (much deserved) mockery.
 
One Twitter user wrote: “’There’s been a stabbing.’ ‘Quick, get me the GPS tracking for every knife in a 3 mile radius.’ ‘OK, it says there are 120,000 of them, mostly in kitchens.’ ‘Bollocks, thought we had them then.’ ‘Could ask those young lads with the machete.’ ‘Nah, they’ve got a mackerel, been fishing.’”
 
Another user wrote: “Have you got much in the way of a plan for how the police monitor the movement of the UK’s, let’s say 300 million knives?”
 
And this all barely gets into a fraction of the problems with this idea.
 
Shall I go over them quickly, since I’m fairly certain they will try and propose something like this at some point anyway and it’d be good to think over all the negatives, impossibilities and outright idiocies attached to such a plan?
 
Okay, then. I’ll do that. But where to begin? How about the fact that it’d be incredibly expensive and difficult to fit a GPS device into every single knife put into development from the moment the legislation passes?
 
Seriously, I don’t know how much it would cost to actually do that, but that sort of equipment is expensive and hard to mass produce for what I can only assume is a relatively conservative estimate of 300 million knives (considering the U.K.’s population sits at around 66 million and most people have a multitude of knives in their homes, I’d say that’s a very conservative estimate since each person would have to have roughly 4.5 knives and most people’s kitchens have A LOT more than that).
 
Another thing to consider is the fact that it’d be outright impossible to track every single one of these knives and even whether or not they are outside. The accuracy of these systems begins to dip farther than 5 meters or 16 feet. You would have to have an agent nearby surveilling particular knives to see if they are outside for any given reason, which makes it pretty much impossible to accurately track these things.
 
But perhaps the most laughable aspect of this entire thing is that, even if you did somehow find a way to pay for the implanting of GPS trackers in EVERY SINGLE KNIFE in the U.K. and could somehow track each one to an accurate degree, these GPS tracking systems are not likely to be dishwasher-safe and require batteries to operate. Meaning the person OWNING the knife would have to replace the battery of the GPS tracker in order for the tracker to work. And guess what people who don’t care about laws will prefer to do with a dying battery on a GPS tracker on what will be their desire weapon of choice?
 
So even if you somehow managed to climb over the massive hurdles relating to cost of both implanting GPS trackers into the knives and having enough man-power to track every single knife that winds up outside for any reason, the actual device would only be able to keep track of people who DON’T INTEND ON USING IT AS A MURDER WEAPON! If people are required by law to change the batteries in the systems, only THOSE WHO ABIDE BY THE LAW WILL DO IT.
 
And thus, we get right back on to the most important point anyone can make in a gun control or knife control argument: criminals, by definition, don’t care about the law.
 
As I have explained multiple times in the past, murder is already illegal. You are not allowed by law to kill your fellow human being unless it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was in self-defense. And yet, people still do it. It’s not a problem with the law, but a problem with being unable to always enforce that law.
 
It is illegal to rape people, murder people, sell drugs to people, harass people, assault people, threaten people, etc. All are things that people do anyway because man is naturally evil.
 
So having a knife registry where you keep track of every knife via a GPS tracking system would AT BEST only keep track of law-abiding people AKA the people the government shouldn’t be targeting.
 
And that’s a best case scenario. Again, you would have to clear the nearly or actually impossible hurdles of 1) paying for the GPS tracking system in each and every single knife, 2) having the man-power to keep track of knives that somehow end up outside and 3) coming up with a way to not have the systems get destroyed upon the first wash.
 
And that’s all to amount to still not being able to stop knife crimes! Yeah, no, this is a great idea.
 
But this is ultimately what I’m trying to say: you can’t legislate evil. Evil will find ways to be evil. If evil wants to kill someone, they’ll find a way to do it. Take away evil’s gun, they’ll use a knife. Take away the knife, they’ll use blunt objects like baseball bats, pipes, and whatever they can get their hands on to inflict physical harm. Take away all of those things and they’ll use their fists. And as impossible as it is to take away people’s blunt objects (because just about anything can be a murder weapon from a baseball bat to a pen to even the very keyboard I’m writing on), you 100% cannot take away people’s fists to prevent them from hurting someone else.
 
The unfortunate truth of reality is that man is naturally evil and will often do evil deeds. You can’t enact these laws because these people don’t care about laws. You can try to enforce those laws, but that will never fully prevent anyone from doing something egregious. And most of the time, these laws end up hurting people more than helping them. Often times, when someone wants to legally buy a gun, they can run into trouble while the process is still going through. This sort of thing is especially the case if someone is trying to protect themselves from a dangerous and crazy ex or overall a stalker.
 
Something else to note is that people who intend to commit crimes with a gun will more often than not choose not to buy the gun legally. 
 
How often has a shooter used his parents’ or friend’s weapons to commit the egregious act? How do you counter that? Often times, no new gun laws proposed in the aftermath of a shooting would include something that could’ve prevented the shooting. Even Diane Feinstein, in the aftermath of the Las Vegas shooting, admitted that no new gun law that Congress was looking at would’ve prevented that massacre.
 
There are simply way too many factors in place surrounding the event of a shooting or a knife attack for legislation and government agents to be able to work out. Certainly spending an irresponsible amount of money to invest in a device that at best will only help to keep track of the very people you do not need to keep track of is no way to do it.
 
And don’t misunderstand, there are people in Parliament who are looking to see what they should or could do with something similar. That tweet wasn’t just a random thought; it was testing the waters. They think it’s a solid enough idea that would simply need to be better polished and better explained than in a 280-characters-or-less tweet.
 
The fact that something like this was even suggested by someone in the U.K. government tells you the level of stupidity that is in place. Even if he’s a rarity in the U.K. government (which I highly doubt), he certainly at least brings down the curve.
 
Job 11:12
“But a stupid man will get understanding when a wild donkey’s colt is born a man!”
 
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.

The DOJ recently released a report surveying criminals who committed crimes (both violent and non-violent) at the state and federal level.
 
In their survey, they discovered that roughly 43% of the prisoners got a gun either off the street or through an underground market. 7% say they found a gun at the scene of the crime that would later be committed by them and 6% say they had stolen the gun. 25% got a gun through a family member, friend, or generally as a gift.
 
And one of the most interesting statistics provided by the report is the following: “Among prisoners who possessed a firearm during the offense for which they were imprisoned, 7% of state and 10% of federal prisoners serving a sentence in 2016 bought or traded for the firearm from a gun shop or gun store.”
 
So 90% of federal and 93% of state prisoners acquired guns outside of a gun shop or a gun store.
 
And the Left says we need more gun control measures?
 
What’s more, only “1.3% of prisoners obtained a gun from a retail source and used it during their offense,” according to the Daily Wire.
 
And by the way, that 7% of state and 10% of federal prisoners obtaining a gun from a gun store only counts towards criminals who POSSESSED a gun during the crime they committed for which they were imprisoned, not necessarily those who actually used the firearm.
 
Roughly “29% of state and 36% of federal prisoners serving a sentence for a violent offense in 2016 possessed a firearm during the crime. About a quarter of state (23%) and federal (25%) prisoners serving time for a violent offense used a firearm during the crime.”
 
The survey also breaks down the demographics for people most likely to have possessed a firearm during the crime committed for which they were imprisoned and found that “male prisoners were more likely than female prisoners to have possessed a firearm during their crime. About a fifth of male state and federal prisoners serving a sentence in 2016 possessed a firearm during the crime.”
 
According to the survey, 20.9% of state prisoners possessed a firearm at the time of committing the crime for which they were imprisoned, while 13.9% actually used a firearm. 20% of federal prisoners possessed a firearm with only 5% having used one. However, these are just the numbers for the number of total prisoners. In other words, these numbers include violent and non-violent crimes.
 
When it comes to violent crimes, as stated previously, 29.1% of state prisoners possessed a firearm and 23% used it, while 36.2% of federal prisoners possessed one and 25.3% used it.
 
Unsurprisingly, homicide and robbery saw the biggest number of people having possessed and used a gun both at the state and federal level, with assault trailing behind.
 
But the biggest focus for this particular conversation should be the statistics for how firearms are procured by the criminals.
 
Again, only 7% of state prisoners and 10% of federal prisoners obtained guns through a gun shop. At least 90% obtained it through different means.
 
Now, we do also have to look at that 25% who say they obtained their guns via a friend, family member, etc. I won’t get into that particular way to get a gun, since that can be a relatively slippery-slope to go through in terms of the extent of their legality.
 
What I mean is that, in my opinion, the most logical way to buy a gun for someone else is to go to a gun shop with the person you are gifting the gun to so that the store can run a background check for that person. I am well aware that people also do things differently, but the reason I bring this up is because that seems to be the most logical and least legally obscure way of gifting a gun for someone else.
 
But in any case, like I said before, the main focus of this article is that statistic showing that a very miniscule amount of criminals obtained their guns at a gun shop.
 
Which really drives home the point that gun control simply doesn’t work. A bad guy will find ways to get guns if they have enough of a desire to do evil (and as a side note, a wall would really help regarding the flow of illegal guns into our country).
 
It makes no sense to punish those who follow the law for the actions committed by those who don’t follow the law.
 
Whenever there is a shooting, the Left will automatically blame the gun and call for more gun control which only affects law-abiding citizens.
 
But if this report is in any way accurate, then the argument for gun control goes out the window. If criminals tend to acquire their guns through ILLEGAL MEANS then there is not much more gun control laws will do except leave innocent people vulnerable to more attacks.
 
As I have said in multiple other articles discussing gun control and the 2nd Amendment, things like marijuana, crack and other illegal drugs are already illegal (for the most part). You are not legally allowed to have a bag of crack on you or in your home. And yet, people find ways to do it.
 
Those who obey the law will not have bags of crack on them (unless they are planted on them). Those who obey the law, by definition DON’T BREAK THE LAW!
 
Those who don’t obey the law will not care if there is more gun control or not, at least in regards to them obtaining a gun.
 
If anything, criminals love it when more gun control legislation passes. It means things get harder for people to acquire guns through legal means and they can be left a bit more vulnerable.
 
It’s not rare to hear of stories of someone, usually a woman, who wishes to obtain a gun through legal means because they fear for their life, but end up dying because of gun control legislation that makes it very difficult to obtain a gun.
 
And it’s not rare at all to hear of multiple weekends of bloodshed in places like Chicago, where gun control is faithfully implemented as much as it can be.
 
So not only does gun control usually mean more bloodshed and death wherever it is implemented, but it is not even doing what it supposedly is supposed to do: keep guns away from people who should not have them.
 
Not that that comes as any surprise to you or me. But it is good to see that rhetoric put down on paper, studied, and thoroughly looked at and basically proven.
 
Most criminals don’t obey laws. Who knew?
 
Proverbs 21:15
“When justice is done, it is a joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.”
 
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.
​

Let me tell you, unlike the coward Parkland cop I wrote about last week, none of these officers will claim that it was not their duty to do what they did. In Richmond, Indiana, tragedy was averted last Thursday when Richmond police officers were given a tip of a 14-year-old teenager going to a school while armed.
 
District spokeswoman Bridget Hazelbaker said that the schools in the Richmond community had received a tip of the shooter and had gone into lockdown. When police confronted the armed teen, he reportedly “shot out the glass of a locked entry door to the school, and ran inside with police officers in pursuit,” according to police.
 
According to The Daily Wire: “Police confronted the suspect at the north door, but the teen shot out the glass of one of the school’s locked doors to get inside the building. Police pursued the suspect and there was another exchange of gunfire, officials said. It ended in the south stairwell on the second floor where the teen died from ‘an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound.’”
 
Indiana State Police Sergeant John Bowling said: “Someone knew something, and they said something. Local police had received information and they reacted on that very swiftly, and I think because of their swift reaction and also the swift reaction at the school that no student injuries happened.”
 
Captain Dave Bursten added: “We are very, very grateful for the person who made the call. Had they not made the call, there is no doubt in my mind that we would be having a much different conversation right now.”
 
No officers or students were harmed.
 
Richmond Mayor Dave Snow also praised police officers and school officials for their great work at impeding tragedy, saying they “did everything right today.” Unfortunately, he later went on to blame lack of gun control measures, saying the incident was “yet another example of gun irresponsibility, poor mental health awareness and access… This is only going to continue until concrete action is taken so that guns do not fall into the hands of our kids. The irresponsibility that leads to a child walking into a school with a gun is unacceptable.”
 
It is unacceptable, but no amount of regulation would’ve stopped this. A 14-year-old is not allowed to have a gun, in case you didn’t know. I don’t know how he managed to get his hands on one, but gun control didn’t prevent this tragedy. A miracle prevented this tragedy.
 
And I don’t think I am overstating how important that tip was by calling that a miracle. Apart from the poor soul that had either the mental instability or the evil heart (or both) to attempt what he attempted to do, no one else died from this. No innocent child, no faculty member, no police officer, and they are the ones who were most at risk.
 
We really must thank God for this.
 
Now, I could go on to make this article about how no amount of gun control prevented this, but I think I’ve already made my point pretty clear. The Richmond Mayor, being a politician, is clearly just trying to score political points and insist that further gun control measures should be implemented, but he is completely wrong in that case. Still, I won’t go further into that topic of conversation because I am just glad that no innocent life was lost in this incident.
 
I don’t know who the tipper was or how they managed to get this kind of accurate information relating to the potential shooter, but it is a very good thing that he or she did what they did.
 
But this is a great example of what happens when police actually do their darn job. I know I talked about him in length at the end of last week, but Broward County (FL) Deputy Scot Peterson doesn’t hold a candle stick to any of these officers. Now, I assume there was more than just one officer who confronted the would-be shooter, so they had the number advantage that Peterson didn’t have, but they also knew that they ran a risk intercepting and engaging the suspect anyway. Any one of their lives could’ve been lost by a simple confrontation, and there definitely was a gunfight that ensued, so any of the officers could’ve lost life or limb, and they knew that perfectly well.
 
Because that is precisely what a police officer is supposed to do, as I explained in the last article. “Protect and Serve” is not just a motto, but pretty much a code for law enforcement.
 
And let’s not forget that the Broward County Sherriff’s office and the FBI could’ve also prevented the tragedy at Stoneman Douglas. If you remember, they were acutely aware of the large and real possibility of a school shooting happening, but did not follow up on that whatsoever. So it’s not just Scot Peterson who was apathetic regarding the Florida shooting, but so was the FBI and the Sherriff’s office.
 
Richmond police were given information about a shooter, took it seriously, and acted swiftly. As a result, the only life lost was the one that would’ve taken the lives of others. Still tragic, since any loss of life is a tragedy, but if reports are accurate that it was a self-inflicted wound, there wasn’t much officers could’ve done in that situation.
 
Of course, officers were ready to kill the shooter if need be, but if they could’ve simply arrested him, that’s what they would’ve gone for. So the kid taking his own life is not something the officers could’ve had much of a chance of preventing.
 
Of course, I don’t know exactly what happened in that situation. There reportedly was an exchange of gunfire that ended “in the south stairwell on the second floor”, where the shooter died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. I don’t know the layout of the school or how close the officers were to getting the kid, but I assume he felt there was no alternative at that point. I don’t know how much of an opportunity police had to convince him not to kill himself, if any at all. So that’s tragic, but at least the guy had no opportunity to actually cause harm to innocent kids and faculty.
 
God bless the man or woman that tipped off the police about the shooter, otherwise this article would’ve been about something completely different, and very similar to other articles discussing school shootings, unfortunately.
 
I won’t rail on the Richmond Mayor much for insinuating that gun control would’ve prevented this just as well, if not better than police and the school district did because we breathe a sigh of relief over the fact that a school shooting was expertly prevented.
 
Here’s hoping tragedy can be prevented in the future, not simply through a miraculous tip and through police response to it, but through encouraging hearts and minds to follow Christ and His teachings. That would truly be the only way tragedies like these can be put to an end.
 
Psalm 77:14
“You are the God who works wonders; you have made known your might among the peoples.”
 
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.

Often times, whenever there is a tragic shooting that the entire nation talks about, such as the most recent one at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh that claimed the lives of 11 Jews, the Left will claim that the argument of a “good guy with a gun” is not real and does not happen - that it’s largely a hoax.
 
And to make sure they can continue saying that sort of thing, they will avoid stories like the one I am about to share with you. A story where a good guy with a gun potentially saved the lives of countless people at a McDonald’s in Birmingham, Alabama.
 
On Saturday night, the same day as the Tree of Life Synagogue shooting, a masked gunman opened fire in a McDonald’s in Birmingham. WBRC-TV covered the story, saying that the gunman entered the McDonald’s “when an employee opened the door for a father and his sons to leave.”
 
The shooter “then opened fire in the restaurant. At that point, the father began shooting at him.”
 
The father, the shooter, and one of the sons were all hit, but only the shooter died, with the father and the son sustaining “non-life threatening injuries.”
 
At this time, authorities do not know if the shooter was simply robbing the restaurant or targeting a specific employee.
 
Unfortunately, there does not appear to be CCTV footage of the incident, so I cannot exactly tell one way or the other. From the description given by WBRC-TV, the employee opened the door to allow for the family to leave, at which point the shooter entered and opened fire.
 
That appears to be, from the description, the chronological sequence of events in this story, so it appears that the shooter did not intend to rob the restaurant, but rather intended to shoot up the place and leave as many people dead as possible. If he were robbing the place, he would’ve let the family go, so there would be less people to worry about attacking him or calling the police.
 
And considering this was late at night, I don’t think there were that many people inside.
 
Now, from the apparent sequence of events, I find it miraculous that the father was quick enough to pull out his own gun and fire back at the shooter. Not knowing fully how the whole ordeal went down, and only picturing it from the description given by the local news source, I find it incredible that the father reacted quickly enough to see the gun (if the gun was even out before the shooter went in, which it must’ve been the case), pull out his own gun and start firing back, while he and one of his sons took at least one shot themselves.
 
I imagine there are a few details missing from this since that would simply have to be next to inhuman reactions to be as effective as he was while sustaining as little damage as he did.
 
Regardless, that’s for the people to know and for us to wonder (unless more details arise).
 
The father, as is to be expected, will not face any charges for his actions, according to local authorities.
 
In the aftermath, one of the employees told WBRC-TV that he was “feeling grateful”. “Wrapping my head around it all, I was just wishing someone would come wake me up from this nightmare.”
 
Another employee added: “He’s my hero. Because I can only imagine how it would’ve went if he wasn’t armed. We might not be here having this interview.”
 
As incredible and fascinating as this story is, it has next to no chance of being covered by the fake news media. And if it does, they will likely entirely ignore the father having saved the day, or at least mention him as though his contribution had been next to irrelevant.
 
The reason for this is that this largely helps support the notion and argument that conservatives use that a good guy with a gun can beat a bad guy with a gun. That the answer to gun crimes like these aren’t to restrict law-abiding citizens of their rights to bear arms but to help them protect themselves with less restrictive gun laws because there will always be bad people with guns. Just look at Chicago, the city with the strictest gun control laws in America.
 
But aside from this one story alone, there are countless other instances when a good guy with a gun saves the day, either by saving his/her own life, property or other people.
 
According to a study by The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, which was ordered by the anti-gun Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence.”
 
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
 
A different study suggests that there are over 1 million (1,029,615, to be exact) DGUs per year “for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere” but excluding “military service, police work, or work as a security guard.” According to Paul Hsieh, a conservative columnist on Forbes who wrote about this subject using both of those studies, says that the second study “[yields] an estimate of 162,000 cases per year where someone ‘almost certainly would have been killed’ if they ‘had not used a gun for protection.’”
 
In other words, people tend to protect themselves when faced with a deadly threat, particularly when they are armed. It’s very common, but it feels as though it isn’t given the amount of times the Left covers a shooting taking place in a school, an office, a church/synagogue, etc. which most of them are typically gun-free zones.
 
This story, alongside many that the media refuses to cover, serves to further support the notion that the best way to deal with a bad guy with a gun is through a good guy with a gun. It’s really not something even the Left should be able to argue.
 
When a shooting happens, who do people tend to call? Cops aka good guys with guns. Either they call the cops or security to deal with the threat. And both entities tend to have guns.
 
So the gun isn’t the problem here. It’s the sociopathic and evil individual perpetrating the evil deed.
 
In the UK, you may not see an awful lot of shootings (though they still happen), but you do see an awful lot of knife attacks, acid attacks, vehicular manslaughter, etc. That goes to show that the tool of use is largely irrelevant. Bad people will do bad things with whatever they have available to them.
 
The biggest difference between this story and any other story of a shooting is that there was a good guy with a gun right there to step up and eliminate the threat, even if it comes at a cost.
 
Thankfully, the father sustained injuries that are not life-threatening, but things could’ve turned far worse had he not had his weapon on him.
 
Gun control doesn’t keep bad people from owning or getting guns. It keeps good people from protecting themselves, having to hurdle through tons of bureaucratic bullcrap just to have the hope of being able to protect themselves should the need ever arise.
 
Luke 22:36
“He said to them, ‘But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free. No hidden fees and nothing to pay for down the line. 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.