Hillary Clinton spoke about the shooting at Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina by posing the following questions:
How many innocent people in our country from little children to church members to movie theater attendees? How many people do we need to see cut down before we act?
In the first question, Hillary makes obvious references to the shootings at Sandy Hook, the theater shooting in Colorado as well as both the shooting at the Sikh Temple in Wisconsin and last night’s attack.
Hillary speaks of little children, church members and movie theater attendees. But what about our military personnel?
Weren’t the soldiers who died at Fort Hood also victims of gun violence?
If so why did Hillary omit the mention of our military personnel?
I wrote about this a couple of years ago. The two reasons I believe Fort Hood never gets mentioned in the Obama Administration’s talking points on gun violence is because a) it was an act of Islamic terrorism, er, workplace violence and b) the terrorist was subdued by two police officers with guns. Talking about Fort Hood is mighty inconvenient for the Obama Administration members present and past.
Which brings me to Hillary’s second question. She asks how many more people have to be cut down “before we act”. In what way does Hillary intend to act? And how will it stop the kind of violence that was visited upon the congregants of Mother Emanuel? Since when do criminals obey gun laws or any other laws? No amount of gun control legislation could have prevented what occurred last night.
There are no easy answers. But if Hillary really wants to act then let’s begin with more cops with guns. I know that won’t be a popular answer in many precincts and it isn’t a perfect solution (as if such a thing exists). As we saw a certain pool party last week, some cops are more responsible than others. Of course, police officers can’t be everywhere. When the police aren’t around people law abiding people have to be allowed to defend themselves. As such more concealed carry laws would be in order. Again, an imperfect solution. I don’t know if people really want to bring guns into a house of worship. If carrying guns into a church or temple isn’t viable then hire security personnel or install metal detectors.
Let’s put it this way. If a criminal knows that a particular place has people who are armed or at the very least is secured the less likely he is to cause trouble. And if that doesn’t deter him then a good guy with a gun will.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.