Democratic presidential candidate U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren addresses supporters at a rally Monday, Sept. 16, 2019, in New York. (AP Photo/Craig Ruttle)
By now everyone has heard, seen, or read about the heroism
of volunteer church security guard Jack Wilson who saved potentially hundreds
of lives inside West Freeway Church of Christ last week. When a deranged man
stood up in the middle of communion and opened fired on the unsuspecting
congregation, Wilson drew his pistol and dropped the man with a 50-foot shot to
It was a sterling example of what a well-trained, armed
citizen can do in a dangerous situation where waiting on law enforcement isn’t
tenable. Unfortunately, like with so many other things in our current political
environment, discussions over gun rights have become so polarized that neither
side is willing to grant the other any legitimacy.
For instance, Democrat presidential candidate Elizabeth
Warren was asked at a recent campaign event whether after the Texas church
shooting she could acknowledge the wisdom in allowing citizens who are licensed
and “checked” by the government to keep and bear concealed weapons.
Her answer included no nuance, no fair treatment, no
reasoned thought. It was instead a one-word declaration: “no.”
Think through the stubborn ignorance exhibited here – not
just by Warren, but by the throngs surrounding and applauding her.
Had Jack Wilson not been carrying a concealed weapon that
fateful morning, it would have unquestionably meant a bloodbath. Women,
children, elderly – a complete slaughter, all livestreamed to the world.
It is also undeniable that there isn’t a single law that
would have prevented the murderer from doing what he did. As a mentally ill
criminal with a lengthy rap sheet, he was already legally prohibited from
having a gun. But he still had one.
So if these things are true, explain the wisdom in Warren’s
position. Explain the logic. Explain how her obstinance is not a callous
declaration that her political donations are more important than the lives that
would have been lost without conceal carry.
Personally, I don’t understand gun rights advocates who are
unwilling to engage the conversation about limiting the prevalence of guns in
our culture. But barring any national mandatory gun confiscation – which would
never be even remotely successful – realists have to acknowledge that we will
be living in a country where bad guys have access to guns.
If it is truly the position of the anti-gun left that good
guys should not also have access to guns to protect themselves, what is their