Common Search Terms
Defensive Gun Use DGU Shooting
Stay Informed!

Get EBGC Gun News sent directly to you!
Because he had his weapon and nobody else did at that time

The details seem to be straightforward at this point. Paul Anthony Ciancia, a 23-year-old California man opened fire at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), earlier today killing 1 TSA agent and wounding 3 other people before being shot by police and taken into custody.

We are going to see all of the usual rhetoric on both sides because this is yet another gunman opening fire in a "gun-free zone" and, if early reports are correct (always a big if) the gunman used a rifle of some type.

The major media will cover this ad nauseam so we aren't going to regurgitate their coverage. What drew me to this story and what I wanted to focus on was a single quote I read.

Before he opened fire, Ciancia was walking through the terminal with his rifle in a bag when he approached Leon Saryan and asked the one word question: "TSA?". As chilling as that simple question is given the obvious targets of the shooting I was more startled by something Mr. Sayan said of the encounter:

"He must have felt that he was in control, because he had his weapon and nobody else did at that time."

It really doesn't get any more simple than that.

We're going to hear the gun control groups out in full vitriol and at full volume about the need for ever more gun restrictions (while ignoring that this happened in a state with some of the more restrictive laws in the nation), what we are still not going to hear is any acknowledgement that Colonel Jeff Cooper was right all those years ago:

"The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"

When will we see a leader emerge who will tell people the hard truth that life is not a safe venture and that we cannot prevent evil or deranged people from doing evil or deranged acts. Instead we have a panopoly of half-thought out solutions, none of which accept the underlying reality that life is dangerous.

The leaders of both political parties have slightly different ways of infringing on liberties in an effort to show they have a solution when not one of the proposals could have changed these tragedies.

- A gun ban? Pointless because the guns are already in circulation. In Australia and the UK they are seeing an increase in firearms related violence as criminals still find access to them while law abiding citizens are arrested for defending their homes.

- Restrictions on the mentally ill? Another red herring. We value our privacy and our safety in this nation. None of the mass shooters in recent history would have been prevented from purchasing firearms. The restriction from purchasing is only on court mandated psychiatric care. If you expand that to cover anyone who gets psychiatric treatment how many people who need treatment will avoid it?

- Magazine capacity restrictions? Just stupid. The commission tasked with looking into the Virginia Tech shooting made it clear in there report that reduced magazine capacity would have had absolutely no effect on the incident and other attacks inevitably show similar results when studied without bias.

What is the solution? Hell if I know. I do know that superficial fixes that restrict liberty are never the solution in "the land of the free and the home of the brave".

For now, I'll stick with the words of Thomas Jefferson...

"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem"

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery"