The leftist narrative is that of course this latest terror attack is due to insufficient gun control – facts, reason, and American rights be damned.
A few thoughts, based on the information that’s been promulgated so far.
“Where there’s a will, there’s a way” applies just as much to evil goals as it does to virtuous ones. Focusing on the tool used to do evil is ignoring the evil. There are many ways to commit mass murder, and making it more difficult to obtain one tool will simply cause terrorists to use another tool instead. It’s far harder for people to defend themselves from explosives or a vehicle driven with intent to kill. And the Orlando terrorist was a fan of the Boston Marathon bombers, so it’s not like he would have given up if he couldn’t obtain guns.
Laws don’t help if they’re not used. Testimony from the Orlando terrorist’s ex-wife indicates that he was a violent person who’d already committed assault. Why was he never brought up on charges for domestic abuse so extreme that his wife’s parents felt the need to essentially kidnap her to save her life? The authorities cannot deal with violent criminals if their victims don’t come forward.
A coworker testified that the terrorist was homophobic, racist, and harassed him, and yet when he reported this to their employer, nothing was done. Because the terrorist was a Muslim “POC” his atrocious behavior was ignored. This is exactly how political correctness enables violent crime, by covering up and making excuses for the inexcusable. Fort Hood and San Bernardino were enabled the same way – people refused to confront evil because they were afraid of being called “racist” or “Islamophobic”, and so evil got to operate with impunity.
The terrorist should never have been able to keep his job as a security guard – after abusing his wife and harassing a coworker, he definitely shouldn’t have been licensed to legally obtain or carry any kind of firearm. If there had been an official record of his previous violent behavior, would the FBI investigators have kept a closer watch on him as a high risk individual, as hindsight shows he was?
Side note – a nightclub is an extremely poor environment for self-defense. Witnesses testified that at first they couldn’t distinguish gunfire from the music! And a large crowd of people who can’t legally arm themselves in that environment was defended by only a single armed guard. In the wake of many other terrorist attacks around the world – many of which involved multiple attackers – a single armed guard is not enough. Probable jihadi targets need to take terrorist claims seriously and increase their security. How many lives could have been saved if there’d been more than one armed defender on the scene as soon as the terrorist arrived? How many injured people bled out as they waited those long hours for the hostage situation to be resolved by the police?
I guess people don’t want to take responsibility for their own safety in part because contemplating how vulnerable you are to someone who means to do you harm is, quite frankly, terrifying. You have to be on guard always, but the predators only have to get lucky once. People want to ignore the reality of evil and their own vulnerability, instead clinging to talismans like the police or gun control (or even owning a gun but having no training) to give them the illusion of security. And for the majority of Americans, this actually works out fine most of the time. However, the terrorists also know this and take advantage of it. There should never be a place in America where 300 people depend on one armed guard to protect them. Especially not 300 people who are high-value targets for Islamic terror.
Self-defense provides herd immunity against violence, and America is in desperate need of a booster shot.