Levels Of Stupidity: No Trump, “Hundreds More” Would Not Have Been Killed In Texas With Stricter Gun Laws
by Elliot Fineman
CEO – Founder
National Gun Victims Action Council
November 8, 2017
Always eager to discredit gun safety laws, pro-gunners generally utilize outright lies, made-up facts and delusional opinions. But Tuesday’s remarks by President Trump sank to a new level: outright stupidity.
Let’s see if we understand the facts correctly. (Excuse me for using facts––it is a hard habit to kick.) Of a congregation of about 50, according to the New York Daily News, 26 were killed and 20 wounded in this week’s horrific massacre at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. That leaves about four people who were unscathed.
LEVEL OF STUPIDITY ONE: President Trump said “hundreds more” would have died in the massacre had not the killer been confronted by someone with a gun. But only four were left unscathed—how can it be that “hundreds more” would have died?
LEVEL OF STUPIDITY TWO: Trump says a “very brave person who happened to have a gun or a rifle in his truck” saved lives. In point of fact, Stephen Willeford, (the “very brave person) was at home not in his truck when he heard gun shots and decided to intervene. Willeford said he loaded his magazine and hurried to the church where he saw the killer and exchanged fire as the killer was leaving the church. The shootout happened after the killer had already committed the carnage with the 450 bullets he shot. Rather than the “hundreds more” Trump said would have been killed, there were about four people left in the church uninjured. (Math is not Trump’s strong suit.)
LEVEL OF STUPIDITY THREE: When asked if he would consider “extreme vetting” for purchasing a gun, Trump said with such vetting “you might not have had that very brave person who happened to have a gun or a rifle in his truck go out and shoot him and hit him and neutralize him.”
Let’s see. The shooter was not neutralized, he had already committed their heinous act. However, If we did extreme vetting of the First Baptist church shooter, we would have known that he escaped from a mental facility in 2012, that he had a history of domestic violence and animal cruelty and possibly we would have found out about his court martial in the Air Force. He would not have been allowed to buy guns.
Further—Trump seems to be suggesting that the “brave person” might not have passed extreme vetting in which case he would be a “bad guy” with a gun stopping a “bad guy” with a gun. If I understand Trump correctly, there is no point in denying anybody a gun because it takes either a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun.
The levels of stupidity are mind boggling!!!
How can we do extreme vetting? We have done it quite successfully for machine gun private sales and transfers for many decades. I discuss extreme vetting as the basis for background checks in depth in a book I am writing that will be available by early spring.