If Guns Are the Issue, Explain This Mass Stabbing in China That Injured Over 130 and Killed Over 30

Remember the Kunming terrorist attack in China back in 2014? At least 130 people were injured and 31 innocent civilians lost their lives at a railway station.

If you paid attention to the mainstream media this last week, you would probably think that a scary black gun would be necessary to achieve such a high death toll.

Unfortunately for the narrative, the 2014 attack was committed with knives and cleavers.

Doubly unfortunate for the narrative, the killers were able to act indiscriminately until the police showed up with guns.

And when the guns did arrive, four of the murderers were killed on the scene and one was wounded. The attack ended almost instantly.

In China, there are only three permitted civilian uses for firearms: shooting sports (guns owned by clubs which remain on the firing range at all times), hunting (hunting rifles owned for use only while hunting on designated grounds), and private business practice (guns owned for wildlife protection and research, if the owner can prove the weapon is a necessity).

Because of these restrictive laws, the people packed into that Kunming railway station were sitting ducks for ten minutes, waiting on the support of state authorities for safety.

That is not right.

Both the right and the left can agree that innocent people should not die, but the left does not seem to understand what it takes to keep them alive.

The simple fact of the matter is that guns are the best tool to provide such safety — and this stabbing is ample evidence.

The left likes to talk about what kind of gun an individual needs, or whether or not they reall need one in the first place. And when they do this, they make it perfectly clear that they don’t understand the issue.

We don’t have a Bill of Needs enshrined in our Constitution. We have a Bill of Rights, and the government was established to protect them, not infringe on them.

One such right is the right of self-preservation.

Society recognizes that evil exists. This was a fact on that dark day in China five years ago, just as it was in El Paso, Dayton, and Gilroy these past few weeks. The weapon of the attack does not matter near as much as the weapon of defense, because good should always have the upper hand over evil.

If my attacker has a gun, I have the right to defend myself with a gun.

If my attacker has a knife, I have the right to defend myself with a gun.

If my attacker has a hammer, I have the right to defend myself with a gun.

An imbalance was evident in China. When the police finally arrived at the Kunming Railway Station, they neutralized four of the terrorists almost immediately. When these monsters decided to willfully violate the rights of other human beings, they voluntarily surrendered their right to the same protection.

They were evil, and evil does not deserve a fair fight.

This evil will always exist, regardless of the physical means that it uses to accomplish its twisted goal.

The Boston Marathon was rocked in 2013 when terrorists got their hands on pressure cookers and nails, and gasoline was all it took to commit mass murder on July 18 in gun-controlled Japan. And I’m sure we all recall the horrendous 2016 truck attack in France that ended more lives than the deadliest mass shooting in American history.

When you outlaw one method of violence, another will take its place, and the best possible solution for this fact is to level playing field between a perpetrator and potential victim.

We can’t let the left go forward with their ill-advised, ineffective, and radically unconstitutional gun control agenda.

We have to let good people protect themselves in the way they see fit.

No, that’s not fair to the attacker, and nor should it be.