An “Insane” Anti-Gun Argument! By Chris Knight (Florida)
The ZeroHedge article (link below) spotlights Virginia Democrats exploiting a thwarted campus shooting at Old Dominion University (ODU) to push gun control. In the incident, a former Army National Guard member and convicted ISIS sympathiser, Mohamed Bailor Jalloh, entered a classroom, shouted "Allahu Akbar," fired shots wounding three people, and was then subdued and killed by unarmed ROTC cadets using a knife and bare hands. Democrats seized on this heroism: "It's not true that you need a gun to fight back, because those cadets didn't." They framed it as proof civilians can defend themselves without firearms, bolstering bills like Sen. Saddam Salim's assault-weapons ban targeting semi-auto rifles/pistols with high-capacity mags or certain features.
The piece calls this spin "insane," arguing the cadets likely would have preferred guns — potentially stopping the shooter before he fired at all, or at least defending with far less risk to themselves. Close-quarters heroism doesn't scale: most mass attacks aren't neatly confined to rooms where hand-to-hand combat is feasible. The author sees it as ideological opportunism — Democrats prioritising disarmament over safety amid rising threats from Left-wing radicals and Islamic-inspired attackers.
The core counterargument: successful unarmed disarms are outliers, not the rule. Common sense and real-world patterns show massive disadvantage when facing an armed assailant without equal or superior firepower.
The parallel is telling: unarmed resistance can delay or disrupt, but it rarely neutralizes a determined attacker with lethal intent. In Bondi, brave bystanders slowed the killer, yet casualties mounted until superior force (a firearm) ended the threat. In ODU, cadets overpowered Jalloh in close proximity — likely aided by surprise, numbers, and his possible hesitation—but they took risks no one should have to. Had Jalloh kept distance or fired more accurately, the outcome could have been far worse.
Gun-control advocates cherry-pick these rare successes to claim "you don't need guns," ignoring statistics: most mass public attacks (shootings or stabbings) end with armed responders (police or armed citizens) stopping the perpetrator. FBI data consistently shows active-shooter incidents resolved fastest when victims or bystanders return fire. Unarmed scenarios often result in higher body counts until professionals arrive — minutes that feel eternal.
Common sense dictates asymmetry favours the aggressor: a knife or gun gives reach, lethality, and intimidation that bare hands or improvised tools struggle to match. Training helps (ROTC cadets had military discipline), but most civilians don't. Expecting everyday people to disarm killers bare-handed is not empowerment — it's gambling lives on outliers.
Democrats' argument flips reality: heroism in spite of disarmament proves the need for disarmament? No — it proves the peril of forced vulnerability. In a world of threats, equalising force via the Second Amendment levels the field. Outliers don't rewrite the rule: unarmed good guys face grave disadvantage against armed bad guys. Bondi showed brave delay, not prevention; ODU showed desperate victory at unnecessary risk. Both underscore why armed self-defence remains essential common sense, not a luxury.
