Obama Says Mass Shooting Should Be Politicized — Ok, Then … Let’s Do This

A devil's advocate look at the post gun utopia President Obama and other anti-gun activists imagine.

1221 1
1221 1

Following the tragic shooting yesterday at a community college campus in Roseburg, Ore., President Obama renewed his call for increased gun control nationwide.

The shooting at Umpqua Community College left 10 dead and in his speech addressing the shooting, President Obama said, “Earlier this year, I answered a question in an interview by saying, ‘The United States of America is the one advanced nation on Earth in which we do not have sufficient common-sense gun-safety laws even in the face of repeated mass killings.’ And later that day, there was a mass shooting at a movie theater in Lafayette, Louisiana. That day! Somehow this has become routine.”

He continued.

“…somebody, somewhere will comment and say, Obama politicized this issue. Well, this is something we should politicize. It is relevant to our common life together, to the body politic.”

Ok, let’s get politicizing then.

Larry O’Conner asks a solid question to start us off.


There’s only one law that could prevent a mass shooting.  It would be a law that abolishes not just the private ownership of firearms, but would abolish the presence of firearms within the borders of the United States.Then, the border would have to be completely closed to prevent black market guns from getting into the country. Finally, all firearms would have to be surrendered and not even the police or military could possess them.

The military?  Seriously?

Seriously.  Major Hasan ring a bell?

This is the only way.  Just banning them or making gun controls stricter will not work.

Let’s assume for the purpose of politicizing this shooting, that this happens and there are guns in America.

What then?

In 1997, following a mass shooting, Great Britain did close to the above scenario.  Handgun ownership is almost completely banned.  Since then mass shootings have dropped.  Their gun laws are so strict, their Olympic shooting team has to go to another country to practice.

True story.


Knife crime across England and Wales has risen for the first time in four years, official figures have revealed.

Police recorded 26,370 offences in 2014/15, up from 25,974 the previous year – breaking a downward trend since 2010/11.

The ONS data showed that possession of knife offences rose by 10%, sexual assaults with knives went up 28%, and knife assaults increased by 13% from 11,911 to 13,488 offences.

The statistics also showed:

  • A 37% rise in the number of sexual offences recorded by the police
  • The number of rapes (29,265) and other sexual offences (58,954) are at the highest level since the introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard in 2002/03.

Crime doesn’t end because guns are banned.  The only difference is, the people are denied the one thing that puts them on equal footing with a bad guy — a gun.


In the post gun utopia President Obama and other anti-gun activists imagine, this woman is raped:

An elderly woman took hold of a firearm to scare off two men who entered her Big Sur home and attempted to rape her on Sunday, according to the Monterey County Sheriff’s Office.

Around 9 p.m. Sunday, deputies responded to a report of an attempted home invasion in the 37000 block of Garrapatos Road, about 2 miles east of state Highway 1, sheriff’s officials said.

Two men armed with knives entered the home and made their way into a bedroom, where they tried to rob and rape an elderly woman, according to sheriff’s officials.

The woman was able to defend herself with a firearm, sheriff’s officials said.

Is this better or worse than if she didn’t have the gun and was raped?

Serious question.  Given that the only way to prevent mass shootings is to deny her access to a firearm, in this situation, she is raped.  Possibly murdered.

Is it better that she, and countless other women, be raped than to have a mass shooting?

It’s not a false dilemma.  It’s reality.

Women use firearms all the time to protect themselves from sexual assault.  Here’s an example.  Here’s another.  And yet another.

All of these women, rather than being able to defend themselves, are likely raped if they don’t have a gun.

The question that must be asked of those who want to ban guns is, is this better?

Will the increase in home invasions be worth banning guns?

Will the increase in other violent crimes be worth banning guns?

These questions deserve answers because the reality of the situation is simple.  Bad things happen to good people, whether guns are legal or not.

We either deal with the tragedies associated with too much freedom, or we deal with those associated with too little, but one thing is consistent.

We deal with tragedies.

Photo Credit: Youtube


In this article

Join the Conversation

1 comment

  1. mikelorrey Reply

    My article on buzzpo explains why gun free zones should be made illegal.