Knife-wielding men attacked people at the Kunming Railway Station in Yunnan province in southwestern China Saturday, March 1st. Chinese authorities called it a terrorist attack. Police were able to respond and kill four of the terrorists. However, all-in-all 28 people died and 113 were injured according to Chinese state media.
According to news agencies, one of the injured stated “I saw a person come straight at me with a long knife and I ran away with everyone.” He also stated that people who were slower ended up severely injured.
This was a horrific act carried out against an unarmed civilian population. Luckily there were police. They needed to be nearby in order to have acted to stop further violence. As I read the article I thought:
Would it have been any different if China had a second amendment?
If one or two people had a handgun would the attack have been thwarted before it even began?
What would the outcome have been if police were not nearby?
What does the anti-gun crowd think of this article, this report of an unarmed population susceptible to such a simple, yet violent attack?
What I find interesting is that China is a very controlled society. Guns are not in the general populace, central authority gun control, so what does a crazy group do – improvise. Knives became the weapon of choice and the result was still mass attack, many dead and even more injured. The only legal carriers of guns are the police and military. The people at the train station really had no way to protect themselves. The only choice was to run. The slow and those not able to “run” were the first, the easy targets. They were nothing more than sheep being attacked by wolves. The outcome of the attack was easy to foretell.
Could something like this happen in America? The answer is easy, yes absolutely. If the gun banning groups and politicians get their way, the answer to the question takes on a more ominous response – hell yes. Take away all guns from the evil as well as the law-abiding. It really does not matter, evil in whatever form it decides to manifest itself in will always find a way. Crime will be committed, murder will happen, terrorism will be planned and executed. The only difference is how the targeted respond, maybe more rightly put – how they can respond. In the case of the Chinese rail station attack – run and if caught die or suffer attack.
Today, thanks to our heritage and constitutional rights everyone has the ability to protect themselves. A grandmother, place your name here because this editorial is written for you, today has the ability to level the playing field by way of owning a gun, whether rifle, shotgun or handgun. She may not be able to physically fight off an attack in hand-to-hand combat but she does not need to. Criminals or others with evil intent think twice here in the US. Their question is: if I act, can the targeted victim respond with sufficient force? In fact a study by the U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, “The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons,” Research Report (July 1985): 27. – stated 3 out of 5 polled felons say they won’t mess with an armed victim.
Many people attempt to trivialize the second amendment right to own a gun – after all they only want “gun control”. The governor of New York infamously stated “you don’t need seven bullets to kill a deer.” when he attempted to demonize gun ownership in his pitch for gun control. He equated gun ownership to nothing more than a tool used by hunters. In the five seconds of politics in New York before the “Safe Act” was passed there was no real substantial debate about how guns in American history have provided safety and protection. Today few know how the familiarity with guns and their use in previous generations had helped shape events to the good, helped troops in war, put food on tables and provided protection at home. As a New Yorker, and after reading the article, my response today to Cuomo, the governor, is: “Yes Andrew, I may not need seven bullets to kill a deer BUT I may need 20 to protect my wife and family from harm!!”
The gun control groups really have no answer to how anyone would be able to protect themselves if attacked and I don’t know if they really care. The mantra for them is that we will all be safer if we ban guns, if there is real gun control. How wrong they are!! They say gun crime is out of control – again how wrong they are!! A Pew study, drawn from numbers obtained from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found a dramatic drop in gun crime over the past two decades. Their accounting shows a 49 percent decline in the homicide rate, and a 75 percent decline of non-fatal violent crime victimization.
According to the website www.americangunfacts.com, “Every year, guns are used over 80x more often to protect a life than to take one!” and “200,000 times a year women use a gun to defend against sexual abuse.” The second one is for governor Cuomo – again Andrew these women didn’t need their guns to “kill” deer.
An analysis of FBI crime statistics, again published at www.americangunfacts.com, found that states that adopted concealed carry laws reduced Murders 8.5% Rapes 5% Aggravated Assaults 7% and Robberies 3%.
I for one fully believe in the right to bear arms. I do enjoy getting out into the woods. I like to just plink targets. I do feel safer in my house should someone break in. I know that in most cases the police can only arrive in time to investigate a crime not stop it. The liberal media does not publish the good that a gun can do. We read about violence caused by criminals not the protection provided. Every person that believes in the second amendment needs to be vocal. They need to participate in the discussion, join an organization that has the clout to lobby for the right to bear arms. As long as we have this right, we may not be able to immediately stop an attack like the Chinese train station, but we may be able to protect ourselves and other innocent people. Please remember the words “gun control” is nothing more than gun elimination, second amendment destruction.