All Episodes
Previous Next
May 27, 2022 - The Ben Shapiro Show
56:23
The Real Reason Children Died In Uvalde | Ep. 1504
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
New shocking details emerge in the timeline of the Evaldi school massacre, and those details entirely upend left's favorite talking points.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.
I talk about them every single show.
Why haven't you gotten a VPN yet?
Get ExpressVPN right now at expressvpn.com.
There's a lot of talk every time there is a horrible mass shooting, a school shooting particularly, about the kinds of laws that need to be on the books.
The kind of protocols that need to be adopted.
The kind of black letter things that can be done to change the circumstances in which we live.
There's only one problem with all this.
When it comes down to it, the law is only implemented by human behavior.
And so we have a bunch of laws on the books all the time that are violated in every one of these shootings, ranging from pure homicide laws to usually gun laws that are violated in the course of conduct.
In this particular case, there is nothing in the state of Texas that allows a person under the age of 21 to, for example, carry a concealed handgun.
You're not allowed to walk onto school premises with a gun.
These are things that the shooter just did not care about and walked onto school premises and started murdering children.
All of this sort of stuff happens all the time.
And this is also true with regard to, for example, the Buffalo shooting.
The Buffalo shooting?
There are plenty of red flags.
Nobody ever filed for an executive restraining order.
No one ever filed for an ERPO, a restraining protective order, that would have prevented this person from being able to purchase guns despite a long and lengthy history of mental issues.
Violent mental issues.
So when the laws are on the books, but then they don't actually properly get enforced, this becomes a question of human behavior.
And this is particularly true when it comes to police procedure.
We've seen over and over again, whether it is Parkland or whether as it now turns out it is Uvalde, that the police in these cases, whether it is failures of training or failures of courage, have not done their job to protect innocent people.
We saw this when it came to Parkland, most prominently, when it turned out that Scott Israel, the sheriff in Parkland, was completely incapable of either training his officers or getting his officers to go in and do what they had to do in order to stop the Parkland shooter.
And then he sat by, grinning, as various members of the media and some of the schoolchildren themselves attacked politicians for broad-scale gun laws.
Dana Lash was attacked on CNN as sort of the progenitor of the Parkland attack.
Meanwhile, Scott Israel, who is really responsible for the failures of security that led to the Parkland shooting and to the terrible response of the Parkland PD, he was sitting there basically grinning it away on national TV.
And we see this over and over and over again.
There's a great irony to the fact that the left's attitude toward the police generally is incredibly skeptical.
The idea is that the police are the repressive arm of the state.
The police are systemically racist.
The police are bad guys.
But then when it comes to situations like this, we're not allowed to discuss whether the police actually did their jobs.
This is a bizarre circumstance.
So yesterday, for example, the White House was specifically asked about the behavior of the police in Uvalde.
And as we will discuss in just one moment, it now appears that there was basically no protection at the school, that the police did not do their jobs, the police set up a perimeter, the police did not intervene to stop the murder of these children for at least 40 minutes.
And the White House, when asked about it, they said, we're not calling for an investigation.
So every time a black person is shot under Conflicting circumstances.
The White House calls for an investigation and seeks the DOJ and the police department.
But when the police department completely fails to prevent a mass shooter going into murdering 19 school children, then the White House is like, well, we don't need an investigation.
You know, we're going to wait for the facts.
It's kind of incredible how this works.
Does the president believe that there should be an investigation into the police response to this school shooting?
The president, we've been watching the reporting on this.
The president has the utmost respect, as you all know, for the men and women of law enforcement.
And it is incredible how, if this had been a case in which a police officer was in a dispute with a person who grabbed for his gun and he shot the person, that person happened to be black and the police officer was white, you get the White House talking about how every one of these circumstances has to be investigated, we know that there's a problem of systemic racism in policing, they find the tape disturbing, and all the rest of it.
But when you actually have a case where everyone should be disturbed at the behavior of the local police department, then the White House is like, no, no, no, we have the utmost respect for the police.
It's kind of incredible.
And the reason for that is very obvious.
The White House wants to talk about broad scale gun control.
They don't actually want to talk about the things that would prevent or minimize the problem of school shootings.
They do not actually want to do that because we all know what those solutions actually are.
The solutions are things like locked doors, single points of entry, but multiple exits.
Armed security guards who actually know what they are doing on premises.
The police department being able to respond quickly and effectively to school shooters.
Those are the things that actually stop school shooters.
Any of these proposed background checks for private sales of guns?
That's not what's going to do it.
What's not going to do it is a ban on 18-year-olds buying rifles.
That is not going to stop school shootings.
What is going to stop or minimize the damage from school shootings is all of the stuff that we know will do that because these are the security measures that we take at every federal building.
These are security measures that we take at every bank.
These are the security measures we take at every airport.
But apparently they're not good enough for our school kids because we have to make political hay.
Because here are the new details, and they're just unbelievably disturbing, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Local residents voiced anger on Thursday about the time it took to end the mass shooting at an elementary school here, as police laid out a fresh timeline that showed the gunman entered the building unobstructed after lingering outside for 12 minutes firing shots.
You remember, yesterday when we talked about this, the best information available from the Uvalde Police Department was that there had been a person at the school who was armed and got into a gun battle with the shooter, who then took refuge in the building, ran into the building.
And that was after several police officers had driven up and started firing on this person, and then he went into the building.
Now we are finding out there was no school resource officer there.
There was no armed guard there, essentially.
Victor Escalon, a regional director for the Texas Department of Public Safety, gave a new timeline of how the now-deceased gunman barricaded himself in a classroom and killed 19 children and two teachers.
According to Victor Escalante, he says that the shooter was not confronted by armed security when he arrived at the school.
He bust through a fence, and he climbed apparently like an eight-foot chain-link fence.
He jumped the fence, and then he basically hung outside the school for 12 minutes, engaging with officers as they arrived, and then he went inside the school.
Here is the Texas Police Regional Director who is talking about what exactly the shooter experienced when he arrived.
It was reported that a school district police officer confronted The suspect was making entry.
Not accurate.
He walked in unobstructed, initially.
So from the grandmother's house, to the garbage, to the school, into the school, he was not confronted by anybody.
To clear the record on that.
Four minutes later, law enforcement are coming in to solve this problem.
Okay, so you have now the police department itself saying he went completely unobstructed into the school.
Completely unobstructed into the school.
As we'll see, Democrats have been lying and claiming that this is just proof the situation that an armed guard wouldn't do anything.
No, this is actually proof of the opposite.
That when you have no armed guard, it makes it very, very easy for evil people to do really evil things.
Especially in a case where we now know that he shot his grandmother.
The grandmother then called the police on him.
She's still in critical condition.
And then he went to a funeral home and he started shooting at people there.
And then he went to the school.
So you think that an armed guard wouldn't have done anything right there?
That locking the back door wouldn't have done anything?
Like, basic, simple things that would have actually stopped something like this were not done.
It gets worse.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Escalon said he couldn't say why no one stopped the shooter from entering the school during that time on Tuesday.
Most of the shots that the shooter fired came during the first several minutes after he entered the school, according to Escalon.
People who arrived at the school while the shooter locked himself in a classroom or saw videos of police waiting outside were furious.
The police were doing nothing, said Anjali Rose Gomez, who after learning about the shooting drove 40 miles to Robb Elementary, where her children are in second and third grade.
They were just standing outside the fence.
They weren't going in there.
They weren't running anywhere.
Escalon said the officers inside the school were evacuating students and school employees from the premises, as well as calling for backup.
There's a lot going on, he said.
Department of Public Safety officials had previously said an armed school officer confronted the shooter as he arrived at the school.
Escalon said that information was incorrect.
There was not an officer readily available and armed.
Again, here is the timeline.
The shooter shot his grandmother on Tuesday morning and then drove her truck to Robb Elementary, crashing the vehicle into a ditch nearby at 11.28 a.m., according to a timeline laid out by Escalon.
He then began shooting at people at a funeral home across the street, prompting a 911 call reporting a gunman at the school at 11.30.
Then the shooter climbed a chain link fence about eight feet high onto the school grounds and began firing before walking inside unimpeded at 11.40.
So, just to get this straight, he crashed his vehicle at 11.28.
He did not walk inside to the school until 11.40.
At no point was there anyone shooting at him here.
In fact, the first shots fired at him came 11.44, which is fully 16 minutes after he had crashed his vehicle into a ditch, and fully 14 minutes after he had started shooting at people at this funeral home across the street, prompting that 911 call.
The first police arrived on the scene at 11.44 and exchanged gunfire with the shooter, who locked himself in a fourth grade classroom.
There, he killed the students and teachers.
It took an hour for a Border Patrol tactical team to go into the school.
12.40 p.m.
An hour.
Kaitlin Martinez, a fourth grader at Robb Elementary, was playing with other kids during recess when the shooter first appeared on school grounds with the AR-15 style rifle.
Quote, we all ran in and they told us to sit down and they turned off the lights and locked the door, the 10-year-old said. Kaitlin said three police officers eventually came to the door of a room, which was near the one in which the shooter locked himself.
They told us there was a gunman, so we had to evacuate.
We all had to run to our parking spaces.
Outside, she found her mother, Gladys Castilian, who had been pleading with the police to act more aggressively to end the standoff as she waited.
Ms.
Gomez, a farm supervisor, was also waiting outside for her children.
She said she was one of numerous parents who began encouraging, first politely and then with more urgency, police and other law enforcement to enter the school sooner.
After a few minutes, she said, U.S.
Marshals put her in handcuffs, telling her she was being arrested for intervening in an active investigation.
So she is a mom.
Her kids are inside the school.
She's shouting at the cops to go in and do something.
And they have set up a perimeter and they are just sitting around out there for an hour, for a full hour after this piece of human debris entered the school and began shooting children.
Gomez said she convinced local Uvalde police officers, whom she knew, to persuade the marshals to set her free.
A spokesman for the U.S.
Marshals Service said deputy marshals never placed anyone in handcuffs while securing Robb Elementary's perimeter.
Our deputy marshals maintained order and peace in the midst of the grief-stricken community that was gathered around the school, he said.
Gomez described the scene as frantic.
She said she saw a father tackled and thrown to the ground by police and a third pepper sprayed.
Once freed from her cuffs, Ms.
Gomez made her distance from the crowd, jumped the school fence herself, and ran inside to grab her two kids.
She sprinted out of the school with them.
So does this sound like a case where everything that could have been done was done by the local PD?
So this is either a failure of training, or this is cowardice.
Or both.
That is all this is.
And listen, I understand the challenge is that there is no one who is more pro-police than I am.
That person does not exist in the United States.
But if you sign up for this job and there is a human piece of debris who is trying to enter an elementary school to murder kids, you go in.
That is what you signed up to do.
This is why you took the job.
As it turns out, again, the police really botched this one, as far as we are aware.
And it took police officers just going in on their own to stop this thing, to actually stop it.
We'll get to that in just one minute.
First, insider intelligence estimates that by the end of 2022, the number of US adults who own at least one cryptocurrency will climb 19% to 33.7 million people.
Some surveys show that as many as 85% of millennial millionaires own crypto.
So, have you gotten into Bitcoin, Ethereum, Cardano, or other cryptocurrency right now?
It's experiencing a dip, which is actually not a bad time to buy.
Open an Alto Crypto IRA account with as little as $10 today.
Alto Crypto IRA is a great way to start investing and trading in crypto with a tax-advantaged retirement account.
No commissions, no paperwork.
Alto makes investing in crypto incredibly easy.
You can create an account in just a few minutes and invest with as little as $10.
The Realtos integration with Coinbase, you get secure trading 24-7, 150 plus available coins on their interface.
As you know, I've talked about it before.
I'm an owner of both Bitcoin and Ethereum.
There are multiple ways to fund your account.
You can make a cash contribution, transfer cash from an existing IRA, or roll over an old 401k.
Open an Alto Crypto IRA account with as little as $10 today.
Just go to altoira.com slash ben.
That is A-L-T-O-I-R-A dot com slash ben.
Start investing in cryptocurrency today.
Go to altoira.com slash ben.
That's altoira.com slash ben.
According to a Texas police spokesman and Lieutenant Christopher Olivares, he says that the border police, the cops who went in, he said they went in on their own.
He said that they weren't told to go in.
Eventually, they said enough of this crap and they went in.
We do know, Vanessa, right now that there was some police officers, families trying to get their children out of the school because it was an active shooter situation right now.
It's a terrible situation right now.
And of course, just as we mentioned, the loss of life, it's just terrible.
It's a terrible tragedy right now that took place.
But again, we got to keep acknowledging those brave men and women that actually were there on scene that met this suspect.
And of course, we know that they were met with gunfire.
Some of them were shot.
But at the end of this, the suspect was shot and is now deceased.
The threat is now neutralized.
Okay, well, for his part, Escalon, the police regional director, he had no answers for any tough questions yesterday.
So he's asked some of these tough questions at this press conference, and he had nothing, had nothing to say.
You guys have said that he was barricaded.
Can you explain to us how he was barricaded and why you guys cannot breach that door?
So, I am taking all your questions into consideration.
We will be doing updates.
We will be doing updates to answer those questions.
You should be able to answer that question now, sir.
We will circle back with you.
We want to answer all your questions.
We want to give you the why.
That's our job.
So give us time.
I'm taking all your questions.
I'm taking them back to talk to the team.
Can you tell us how the door was barricaded?
Look, thank you for being here.
We'll talk soon.
We'll talk soon.
An even worse clip for Lt.
Olivares.
He appeared last night on National TV, where he openly said, he's on CNN, that the reason that the cops didn't go in is they were afraid they were going to be shot.
Which, I understand.
Also, there are a bunch of 4th graders in there that this garbage human being is shooting in the head.
So, at that point, you know, he's a big tough guy, he knows how to use guns, what are you doing?
Officers are making entry into this building.
They do not know where the gunman is.
They are hearing gunshots.
They are receiving gunshots.
At that point, if they proceeded any further not knowing where this suspect was at, they could have been shot.
They could have been killed.
And at that point, that gunman would have had the opportunity to kill other people inside that school.
So they were able to contain that gunman inside that classroom so that he was not able to go to any other portions of the school to commit any other killings.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Bob Estrada lives directly across the street from the school, which his grandson attends.
The 77-year-old said he and his wife walked outside when they heard gunshots and were confused why the police who arrived didn't immediately enter.
They're trying to cover something up, he said of the information released Thursday.
I think the cops were waiting for backup because they didn't want to go into the school.
The Evaldi Police Department couldn't be reached for comment.
Now, I was talking to some former police officers, and what they said is that the old protocol before things like Sandy Hook and Parkland was that this is what the cops would do.
They would show up, they would create a perimeter, and then they would wait for SWAT to show up to root out the person who is committing the crime.
But that's changed since Sandy Hook, since Parkland.
Now, most police departments are trained.
You go in.
You do not wait around to see if the experts are going to show up to handle the thing because you don't have time.
Virtually all of the damage is going to be done in the first few minutes of confrontation between the shooter and the innocent victims.
Again, Escalon was asked why the police didn't respond for 12 minutes.
He said, our job is to report the facts and have answers and we're not there yet.
Escalon also said the cops are not sure how the shooter was able to enter the school building.
He said, we'll find out more about why it was unlocked or maybe it was locked, but right now it appears it was unlocked.
This person went in through the back door.
Okay, so what this suggests is that there are eminently obvious solutions that are actually available that were not taken here.
Armed people on campus to stop this stuff would have stopped this stuff, or at least could have stopped this stuff.
Locking the doors could have, would have stopped this sort of stuff.
But these are precisely the sort of solutions that nobody in the media actually wants to talk about because it doesn't cut in favor of broad-scale social change that they wish to engineer based on whatever is the most convenient story at hand.
It is very odd in the United States that the time when we tend to have the gun control conversation is when there is a school shooting as opposed to, you know, the other 364 days of the year when lots and lots of people die from gun violence in the United States.
And there's a reason for that.
The reason for that is because the idea is, when it comes to mass shootings, that it could be anyone.
It could happen in your community.
It could happen to anyone.
The truth is, the vast majority of places in the United States where there is large-scale gun ownership do not have incidents like this.
And there are lots of places that have serious gun control where there's mass violence.
Washington, D.C., Chicago.
We don't talk about gun control under those circumstances because the city disproves the case.
Because the gun violence is utterly disconnected from the laws that are on the books.
There are laws on the books preventing people from doing these things.
And then they go and they do them anyway.
And you can see this, by the way, in full scale in Chicago.
Literally yesterday, there was a live report in Chicago from a local news team talking about the prevalence of guns in Chicago.
And while this reporter is on scene in Chicago, just down the street, a man walks into frame and points a gun at the camera.
I promise you, this guy is violating a bevy of gun laws.
Those laws exist in Chicago.
What's he doing?
Why don't we have more gun laws?
We never talk about gun control in the context of where the vast majority of actual gun violence takes place in the country, because again, the case does not follow.
The fact is, in the United States, every year, there are under 400 people who are killed using rifles.
Every year in the United States, there are tens of thousands of people who are killed using handguns.
But what do we always talk about?
When we talk about guns, we talk about banning rifles.
We talk about banning AR-15s.
We talk about making sure that 19-year-olds can't buy an AR-15, even though, again, the vast majority of gun violence in the country is done using handguns.
There's a reason for that.
It doesn't fit the political narrative.
Here is this footage from Chicago.
I mean, this is incredible stuff.
This is a reporter on the street, and a man literally just walks by and points a gun at the camera.
While our reporter was in the middle of a live report about gun violence in Chicago, a man walked up and pointed what appeared to be a firearm at our crew.
Right now, police are calling this man a person of interest, accused of aggravated assault with a firearm.
If you have any information regarding who he is or where he is, please contact Chicago Police.
I have a question.
Does that look like a law-abiding citizen to you?
Does that look like a law-abiding citizen probably will abide by all available gun regulations and laws?
Is that what that looks like to you?
So when we talk about gun control, again, it is important to recognize the only time we have a mass media conversation on gun control is not when there's a normal weekend in Chicago.
It is when there is a mass school shooting, which is a statistical outlier, both in terms of how many school shootings happen in the United States every year, every one of them an act of horrific evil, and also how many people die in such incidents versus how many people die using other weapons across the United States and where they die in the United States using those weapons.
Which suggests that a lot of this is politically driven because when it comes to the actual solutions to school shootings, they actually are quite different from the solutions that would attend to, for example, gun violence between gangs in major American cities.
The media don't want to talk about all that, so they sort of use these school shootings as a hook to talk about gun control.
And then they propose a bunch of stuff that wouldn't have actually stopped the school shooting from happening in the first place.
There's so much tragedy upon tragedy happening in Uvalde.
This story is horrific.
The husband of one of the teachers killed in the shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde actually died on Thursday of a heart attack.
Joe Garcia lost his wife, Irma Garcia, 46, in the shooting.
This is according to Mediaite.
And apparently his nephew announced his uncle's death on Twitter saying that he passed away due to grief.
He said essentially that he had a heart attack after finding out that his wife was dead.
The Garcias were married for 24 years and had four children who are left without either parent.
These sorts of incidents obviously have tremendous collateral damage.
Families that are broken.
People who will never recover is just awful, which would behoove us to actually discuss some actual solutions.
Well, these are difficult times, obviously.
That means that sometimes you need a distraction from the cares of the day.
And one way that you can be distracted from the cares of the day is by getting more information, by learning new things.
This is where the Jordan Harbinger Show comes in.
We are fans here at The Daily Wire.
The Jordan Harbinger Show features in-depth interviews with some of the world's most fascinating minds, ranging from Charles Koch to Colonel Oliver North to Kobe Bryant or Dan Carlin.
He dives really deep A lot of his interviews are just spectacular.
It's clear that Jordan really goes in the weeds preparing for these interviews.
He really kind of asks very detailed questions.
You're going to learn something new with every episode.
Jordan dives into the minds of fascinating people.
From athletes, authors, and scientists, to mobsters, spies, and hostage negotiators.
Every Friday, Jordan also releases a Feedback Friday episode to respond to listener questions, covering everything from conventional problems like leaving a dream job, to heavy subjects like helping somebody escape an abusive relationship.
Plus, listening to Jordan, it goes great with listening to this show.
You're already doing that right now.
So, even though I don't always agree with Jordan, I always learn something new, and that's good enough reason for me to listen to The Jordan Harbinger Show.
Search for The Jordan Harbinger Show.
That's H-A-R-B as in boy, I-N as in Nancy, G.E.R.
in Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you're listening right now.
Again, that is the Jordan Harbinger Show.
You can get it at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you're listening to this show right now.
But as we've been saying, for a lot of people, it's not about the solution.
It's about the political pandering.
And some of them are making it perfectly obvious.
So, for example, Senator Richard Blumenthal from from Connecticut. He says that gun violence is going to be on the ballot, right? And this is what they want. They didn't bring up any votes. They didn't bring up any votes on gun action in the last couple of days. Chuck Schumer said he's not going to, because they don't actually want to vote, because it turns out a lot of the stuff they're proposing is unpopular.
The idea here is if you don't like gun violence, you should vote for us. We don't have solutions, but the other guys love gun violence. So you should vote for us. It'll be on the ballot.
Here's Richard Blumenthal. Let me be very blunt. Gun violence prevention is going to be on the ballot this November.
It will be on the ballot this November, and we need to make it a decisive issue.
And we will vote them out if they fail to vote the right way.
Vote the right way on what?
Vote the right way on what?
What is the proposal that you have made that would have stopped a school shooting like this?
No one can answer that very simple question.
I have made multiple proposals on this program and for years about how you stop school shootings like this, ranging from the societal.
You need to create social institutions that prevent family breakdown.
You need to have stronger communities where people are actually aware of the red flags in their communities and are taking advantage of the existing laws, like red flag laws, in order to inform the police when there is a dangerous person in the community and giving the police the power to actually do something about that, changing the mental health statutes so that people who are a danger to themselves and others can be involuntarily committed for longer than 48 hours before you just release them back onto the street to murder people.
These are all things we can do.
Hardening schools, making sure that there's the proper fencing, making sure that there are armed guards on premises, making sure that there's one point of entry and multiple points of exit, making sure that the doors inside the buildings automatically lock when teachers enter and exit rooms so that if somebody gets into the hallway, they can't just go room to room shooting people.
All of these are things that, by the way, are recommended by security professionals right, left, and center.
Nothing I'm saying here is outside the mainstream, and all of it is very doable.
But we don't have any of those conversations.
Instead, it's about demonization of people who, what, believe in school shootings?
I don't believe that Democrats believe in school shootings.
I believe they're politically pandering right now.
But I certainly don't believe that they are in league with school shooters, but they seem to believe that everybody who disagrees with them is in league with school shooters.
Joe Biden yesterday, he said the only reason to own an AR-15 is because basically you're a sicko.
Here's the President of the United States yesterday.
What in God's name do you need an assault weapon for except to kill someone?
Deer aren't running through the forest with Kevlar vests on, for God's sake.
It's just sick.
And the gun manufacturers have spent two decades aggressively marking assault weapons which make them the most and largest profit.
For God's sake, we have to have the courage to stand up to the industry.
It's not the gun industry that is making this happen.
The reason that I own a rifle is to shoot bad people who try to threaten my family.
That is why I own a rifle.
That's why I think the vast majority of Americans own a rifle.
It's why you have people who are on campus carrying AR-15s, depending on which campus you are on.
It's why you have armed security guards to act as both a deterrent and actually as a first line of defense if somebody decides to do something like this.
But the White House's idea is always gun control and gun control only.
It's not just that this is one of their myriad proposals.
It's their only proposal.
It's the only thing we are allowed to discuss.
If you discuss anything else, you are eliding the problem.
What about the fact that nothing you propose... I keep coming back to this because it's true and it's just mind-boggling.
It's bewildering.
Not a thing that you have proposed stops these school shootings.
It does not stop the school shootings.
And yet you keep proposing these things as though it would.
So Corinne Jean-Pierre, she says, well, you know, the answer is to take away guns.
So first of all, unless you're talking about a mass gun confiscation, I don't know what policy you're proposing.
Are you proposing a mass gun confiscation of hundreds of millions of guns in the United States?
Let's try to put that on the ballot.
Really run on that.
See how that goes for you.
See if the American people are willing to do this.
By the way, even when they had a mass gun confiscation and buyback in Australia, only one third of people who actually own guns turned in their guns.
The rates of gun violence in Australia were already quite low before they had that mass gun confiscation and gun buyback.
Karine Jean-Pierre suggests, well, you know, if more guns were the solution, we'd be the safest country, which is just... There are many holes in this logic.
We'll break it down in a moment.
America has more guns than people in this country.
If more guns were indeed the solution, we would be the safest country in the world.
But we are not.
And so the president has been very clear.
He wants action.
He wants Congress to take action.
He wants to turn this pain into action.
If more guns were the solution, we'd be the safest country.
Well, more guns in the hands of people who are responsible is a solution.
More guns in the hands of people who are irresponsible and evil is not a solution.
We all know this.
So instead of trying to target the people who are irresponsible or mentally ill or sick or evil, instead of trying to target that, your solution is to try to take the guns away from law-abiding people?
I have a counter to if more guns were the solution, we'd be the safest country.
If more gun laws were the solution, Chicago would be the safest city.
If more gun laws were the solution, Washington, D.C.
would be the safest city.
All of this springs from a deeper notion, which is that the government can solve every problem by passing a law, which just isn't, it's never true.
Government cannot solve every problem simply by passing a law.
It requires human beings to implement that law.
It requires people to comply with the law.
It requires people to trust the law.
It requires a bunch of things to happen.
Even if you were to pass a law confiscating all guns in the country, you'd actually have to effectuate that.
How many people would die in the effectuation of such a policy?
So all of this is it's nonsense.
But again, they have to come up with some bad guy and then target the bad guy as political oppositions.
Karine Jean-Pierre, she says the NRA is contributing to gun violence.
This is coming from the party that has ripped on the police so routinely that the murder rates have spiked by a huge percentage over the last few years in every major American city.
And they're saying it's the NRA contributing to gun violence.
The NRA is basically A defunct organization at this point.
The NRA does not have anything close to the kind of power that it had 20 years ago.
The NRA has been having all sorts of internal corruption issues.
It's been having all sorts of internal financial issues.
It doesn't have the kind of sway and pull that it used to have.
The truth is that the gun lobby in the United States is just people who like the Second Amendment.
The vast majority of people I know who own guns are not members of the NRA.
And the vast, vast, vast majority of people I know who are advocates of Second Amendment rights are not members of the NRA.
This is not anti-NRA.
This is just pointing out the NRA is way weaker than it once was.
And not only that, even when the NRA was strong, that was not the reason why people liked the Second Amendment in the United States as a lobbying group.
This is like saying that Planned Parenthood is solely responsible for abortion law in the United States.
That's not right.
Abortion law in California, Planned Parenthood's prevalence in California is reflective of the fact that there are a lot of people who love abortion in California.
Here's Karine Jean-Pierre suggesting it's the NRA contributing to gun violence, not, for example, allowing the mentally ill to be out on the streets able to do whatever they want without involuntary commitment laws on the books.
It's not a question of police procedures.
It's not a question of yelling at the police every five minutes and sticking the DOJ on them.
It's not a problem of family breakdown.
None of those.
It's the NRA.
Nailed it.
What is inappropriate is that the leadership of the National Rifle Association has proven time and time again that they are contributing to the problem of gun violence, not trying to solve it.
And it's shameful that the NRA and their allies have stood in the way of every attempt to advance measures that we all know will save lives from gun violence.
No, you don't.
You don't.
So again, it's all about the gun lobby.
You're corrupt if you oppose them.
You're corrupt.
Okay, so I hear Richard Blumenfeld doing the same thing.
It's the gun lobby.
The gun lobby's days are numbered.
You know what?
You could abolish the NRA tomorrow.
It wouldn't do a damn bit of difference because a huge number of Americans just disagree with you.
I want to say a word to the gun lobby.
Your days are numbered.
You are a danger to society and to America if you continue to oppose these common sense measures.
Oh, you're a danger to America if you oppose me.
Some of the other ridiculous proposals that have been made.
So Democrats have a variety of proposals.
And they are making right now, not before, of course, suggesting that they are the solution.
They themselves are the solution to school shootings, even when they're mass shootings that take place fairly routinely in their states.
Gavin Newsom doing this, the governor of California who was subjected to a recall by his own citizens.
He survived the recall, but he is certainly not any great shakes as a governor.
There's a reason people are leaving California in droves.
He was ripping on the state of Texas and suggesting that Texas is really, really bad because you have the freedom to keep and bear arms in the state of Texas.
Do not give in to the cynicism and all the crap that you heard today in that press conference around evil and mental health that completely belies the fact that there's only one nation on planet Earth that separates itself from all other nations, and that's the United States of America.
And the perversion of a second amendment that begins around well-regulated.
Okay, that is, first of all, he doesn't understand the Second Amendment at all.
Well-regulated does not mean regulations, as in, like, law.
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the preservation of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
That phraseology means a militia that regulates, meaning that they were called regulars, that actually goes out and practices, being necessary to the preservation of a free state from the federal government and foreign invaders.
The right to keep and bear arms on an individual level shall not be infringed.
Because you know who constituted the militia?
It wasn't just like there was a shack there with all the guns.
And the head of the militia would call everybody up on the phone and be like, hey, go get your gun from the shack over there.
Everybody had their gun at their house.
Historically speaking.
These people are just deliberately misrepresenting what the Constitution says in order to achieve their desired effects, of course.
And then the suggestion that it's cynicism to point out that mass shootings happen in California.
It's not cynicism.
That's a fact.
Mass shootings do happen in California, of course, despite the mass gun laws.
Murder rates in L.A.
are high.
There are GOMAs in Los Angeles.
And as far as the idea that this is the only country in the world, this is such a trite, nonsensical line from Gavin Newsom.
As John Lott points out, since 1998, there have been a total of nine attacks similar to the Robb Elementary school shooting.
Nine is nine too many.
Once you adjust for population, there are many other countries, from Germany to Russia to Finland, that have comparable rates of school shooting.
Of course, it's true.
People tend to ignore the fact that the United States is a very, very populous and large country.
The United States population, at this point, Is 330 million people as of 2020?
330 million people.
The entirety of Europe is only about twice that of the United States, a little over twice that of the United States.
We're a very large country, which means that there are a lot of varieties and laws.
There are a lot of evil people out there.
And so, then we get to the actual proposals, and the proposals are increasingly stupid.
We'll get to those in just one second.
First, it only took a few hours after Ricky Gervais' new stand-up special before the Cancel Culture Mob came out with torches and pitchforks demanding his head on a silver platter because he pointed out that men are not women and women are not men.
This happens over and over and over again.
The Cancel Culture Mob is insatiable.
They always need new bodies to trot around, new heads on spikes.
When they come for you, you're on your own, unless you have strong support from people who back you up.
Well, when Disney fired Gina Carano from The Mandalorian because of wrongthink, we here at The Daily Wire saw a huge opportunity to both right that wrong and grab somebody talented to make awesome content.
So, we signed her.
She is now making our upcoming movie, Terror on the Prairie.
If Hollywood wants to keep canceling the smartest and most talented people out there, Well, we are happy to hire them and take advantage of Hollywood's laws.
Set on the plains of Montana, this gritty thriller follows a family of pioneers as they defend themselves from a vicious gang of outlaws hellbent on revenge.
On June 14th, the film is premiering exclusively at The Daily Wire.
I cannot wait for this one.
It is so good, guys.
Don't worry, we're giving you a sneak peek next week when the trailer drops June 1st.
To top it all off, the official Terror on the Prairie movie poster is in our shop right now.
You can buy it at dailywire.com slash shop.
From special guests on our podcast to unflinching films and documentaries that aren't afraid to confront the truth, everything we do at Daily Wire is built around fearlessness.
This is our invitation for you to come be fearless with us.
Join us.
Be part of the mission because here's the thing.
When you support us, you support the fight.
Become a member at dailywire.com slash Gina.
That's dailywire.com slash Gina and keep a lookout.
For the new trailer for Terror on the Prairie, it's going to be just awesome.
Can't wait to bring that to you.
Become a subscriber so you can watch it when it comes out.
Dailywire.com slash Gina.
You're listening to the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
So then there are a bunch of solutions that are being proposed by the left.
So I've already proposed to you a bevy of solutions that apparently are not worthy of consideration, ranging from, you know, lock the doors, to change the protocols for the police, to train the police better, to make sure the police actually go in and stop bad guys, to making sure there are armed guards on school premises that people can't just When I began as a federal agent, I carried a gun and two extra mags every day.
My mags were marked for law enforcement use only because they held more than 10 rounds.
Democrats, however, have different solutions.
So for example, Representative Abigail Spanberger, a supposed moderate from the state of Virginia, she suggests what we really need here is we need to change the ability to reload on guns.
Quote, when I began as a federal agent, I carried a gun and two extra mags every day.
My mags were marked for law enforcement use only because they held more than 10 rounds.
At that time, federal law limited magazine capacity to 10 rounds outside of law enforcement use.
That provision was part of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.
Large capacity magazines equate to more fatalities when a would-be shooter can fire shot after shot.
Research confirms that limiting magazine capacity saves lives.
She does not cite the research that demonstrates this.
The sad reality is that requiring would-be mass murderers to reload saves lives, permitting people escape time and law enforcement response time.
That is why I support legislation to limit magazine capacity.
So, again, they've done this in California.
There's only one problem with this sort of logic, and that is that it is stupid.
The reality is, That if you are a person who is dedicated to committing a mass shooting, you'll simply modify your gun.
The reason that I point this out is because this is precisely what the Buffalo shooter did.
Quote, massacre suspect said he modified Bushmaster rifle to hold more ammunition, according to the Washington Post, May 15th, 2022.
The suspect in the Buffalo supermarket massacre purchased the primary weapon allegedly used in the shooting, a used Bushmaster XM-15 semi-automatic rifle from a licensed dealer near his hometown, but said he then illegally modified the gun so he could use a high-capacity magazine.
He said he bought the Bushmaster in January from Vintage Firearms, a small gun store about 15 miles from his home in Conklin, New York, paying $960 for the rifle, a sling to carry it, and some ammo.
He also recounted how he acquired two backup weapons, a Mossberg 500 shotgun and a Savage Axis XP bolt-action rifle he received from his father as a Christmas present when he was 16 years old.
And again, he suggested that he modified the gun itself so that it would actually hold more ammunition.
So, good luck with this being, so your solution is not more armed guards in schools, or hardening the security perimeter, or making sure that the police actually know how to deal with this sort of stuff, or punishing the police for not dealing with this sort of stuff.
No, your solution is, he's gonna have to take the one and a half seconds to pop out a mag and pop in a new mag.
That is gonna be brilliant, brilliant stuff.
Meanwhile, in even dumber solutions, a reporter yesterday suggested To the White House.
And the White House took it under advisement that perhaps what we need to do here is punish gun companies by removing from them the PPP loans that were available to businesses that were shut down during COVID.
And the White House is like, well, maybe.
Maybe.
So now the idea from the White House is you are a legal business that carries on the transactions of producing firearms that people generally use for home defense and hunting and business defense and defensive self and others.
And we are going to go back in time, and if somebody bought your gun and then used it to murder people, we are going to retroactively remove your loans. We're going to remove the grants that we gave you from the federal government. This is what a reporter suggests. And Kareem Jean-Pierre is like, well, give me the name of the company. We'll, we'll, hmm.
Apparently, the company that sold the shooter his rifles received a $3 million $1.2 million PPP loan under the last administration.
Do you know if there's any effort by this administration to claw that money back?
Honestly, Michael, I need to check with the team and just make sure that is actually factual, but I need to check with the team.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
And we'll get back to you on that.
We'll get back to you on that.
How about we do not have, as the White House, the capacity to claw back legally given grants to legal companies in the United States, no matter how much we disagree with that business operating?
But no.
But no.
So I guess that one's maybe on the table.
Meanwhile, you have Ed Markey, who's just... Every hook is a useful hook to achieve the sorts of solutions that you wanted in the first place.
It's amazing how everything always confirms the priors of these politicians.
So Senator Ed Markey from Massachusetts, he says, you know what we need to do?
Here's our solution.
Let's expand the Supreme Court.
I mean, it's almost as though he wanted to expand the Supreme Court before the school shooting, and now he has another excuse to talk about expanding the Supreme Court.
We have to expand the Supreme Court to get back the two stolen seats that the Republicans and Donald Trump took from the American people so that we can ensure that when we put gun safety laws on the books, they are not overridden.
Oh, OK.
So the solutions we have now are banning larger magazines.
We are going to expand the Supreme Court.
We are going to propose vague, common-sense gun reform, without actually specifying what that gun reform would be.
We're going to talk about universal background checks between private sellers, despite the fact that, again, this suspect, in this particular case, bought his guns legally, after a federal background check, which is federally required.
When you buy a gun from a federally licensed firearms dealer, I've done it several times, when you do that, you actually have to have a background check, and they make you come back in a couple of days, depending on how long it takes for the background check to be conducted.
But we're gonna pretend that that solves it.
But you know what they will do?
They will just full-scale just deny solutions.
Because after all, if solutions were actually effectuated, then perhaps you wouldn't have a hook to run on in 2022.
There is Chris Murphy, who's the worst of the worst on this issue, from Connecticut, saying that all evidence shows that guns in schools is not the answer.
Is that what all the evidence shows?
Truly?
Weird, because it seems like the Capitol Police are guarding him, like, right now, as he speaks.
Over and over again, we have been given proof that arming our schools, putting adults with guns in and around our schools, doesn't seem to protect our kids.
There was plenty of adults with guns at that school two days ago.
There was a person with a gun in Parkland.
There was a person with a gun in Dayton.
For my colleagues here who say the answer is to just put more people with guns in our schools, all the evidence tells us that that's not true.
That is a lie.
That is a lie.
In Parkland, the person with the gun ran away.
And when it came to this particular case, there was no person with a gun.
And as a person who puts their kids in a school where there are men with guns standing outside, I can promise you that is significantly more of a deterrent than not having a gun out there.
Again, these guys...
These people, whether it's Hollywood celebrities who are on set where there are armed security all around the set, or whether it is Chris Murphy standing inside the Capitol building protected by Capitol Police.
And by the way, the minute that Capitol Police were not protecting the building, there were rioters who smashed into the building and threatened Congress people on January 6th.
When he suggests that armed people do not protect other people, I don't know what the hell he's talking about.
I don't know where... All the evidence suggests this?
Really?
Is that what all... Meanwhile, Senator Alex Padilla, he says the same thing.
He says, you know, if you put more armed adults in schools, that's not the answer.
How is this acceptable?
How are you not outraged?
We're outraged.
Oh, come on.
And no, Putting more armed adults in schools is not the answer.
If more guns was the answer, the United States of America would be the safest nation in the world.
But it's not.
Oh wait, I heard that talking point earlier from the White House.
I heard that talking point.
But again, you know, one of the things I noticed is that these sorts of rallies are protected by the cops all around.
That's Alex Padilla from California.
Finally, you have an MSNBC guest making the same point.
The idea is that we've never seen a good guy take out a bad guy with a gun.
We've never seen that ever happen.
Except that's exactly how this stopped.
That's how all of these situations stop.
It stops when finally somebody who's good with a gun goes and stops the bad guy with the gun.
That is literally what happens every time.
And you know what we never talk about are the cases where somebody is going to commit a crime and then somebody with a gun shows up and stops them because they don't turn into national headlines where dozens of people are shot.
So they're just going to continue trotting out these illogical... It's amazing, it's amazing.
So here, our media are fully invested and dedicated to the idea that the only thing that alleviates you of the charge, that you don't care about dead kids, the only thing that alleviates you of that charge is agreeing with them that wide-scale, common-sense gun reform, which they never happen to flesh out, is the answer.
If you side with them, you are a member of the elect.
You're a member of the predestined for heaven elect who never have to actually change policy to protect kids.
All you have to do is say that you believe if you clap hard enough for gun control Tinkerbell, then kids will not die anymore.
That is what we don't have to propose any policy that makes sense.
We don't have to explain how that policy is well calibrated.
We don't have to explain how we're going to effectuate that policy.
We don't even have to explain how it would have stopped this shooting.
We don't have to do any of that.
All we have to do is just say, we agree with you.
And then you are magically a member of the virtuous.
And if you're a member of the virtuous, solutions are completely unnecessary.
Because then we are governed by angels.
And if we are governed by angels, then no laws are necessary.
No regulations are necessary.
All the best will rule us.
Here's an MSNBC guest.
who is going off on this yesterday.
His name is Gregory Jackson, saying we've seen clearly there's no such thing as a good guy taking out a bad guy, except for, again, this is literally how every one of these shootings eventually ends, is when good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns or intimidate them into killing themselves.
We've seen very clearly that, you know, there's no such thing as a good guy with a gun taking out a bad guy with a gun.
We saw that in Buffalo.
You know, someone who was a lifetime gun owner, a retired police officer and security guard who sacrificed his life trying to stop that gunman.
But when you're someone going up against an assault rifle and a world of hate, unfortunately, people are getting outgunned every day.
This is just, it's garbage.
It's just garbage.
But the entire media are garbage.
They're just a propaganda outlet on behalf of the left-wing.
Perfect example, today's Washington Post.
Going after, again, just as you, it's a coordinated attack now, on the manufacturer of the gun.
So the idea is that if you manufacture a weapon and then somebody goes and uses the weapon for an act of evil, somehow you are responsible for the use of that weapon in an act of evil.
Logically, you would never apply it to any other weapon in the history of humanity.
You would never apply it to knives, you would never apply it to cars, you would never apply it to any other object that could be used in a dangerous way.
There are many objects that can be used in a dangerous way.
But we never would suggest that the manufacturer and seller of that object is somehow responsible for the use of that object in a crime.
That'd be a weird argument.
But now they are arguing that not only should these manufacturers be held responsible, but that the manufacturers are actually in control of American politics.
Because after all, who would not side with the angels?
I mean, they've made you an offer.
The offer is you can be on the side of the angels.
So if you're not siding with the angels, it must be because somebody's paying you off.
So you have the Washington Post today, quote, First of all, are we supposed to be surprised that gun manufacturers typically support the party that does not want to restrict gun rights?
Is that supposed to be a shock?
This is somewhat like saying that the manufacturers of drugs that are used in abortions support the Democratic Party.
I would be shocked if they didn't support the Democratic Party.
One of those parties supports laws that are in favor of the use of these products in a legal fashion.
But this is bad, right?
And the reason it's bad is because you're corrupt.
You, you're corrupt.
Did you know that you were paid by Daniel Defense?
You were!
If you don't support their agenda, it's because you got a check from Daniel Defense.
That is why.
It's not because you have independent thoughts in your head.
It's not because you believe in the Second Amendment.
None of that stuff.
It's not because you're a gun owner.
It's because you must have been paid off.
Because otherwise, what else would explain your evil?
I mean, after all, you don't need an AR-15 to shoot a deer in a Kevlar vest or some such nonsense.
So here's the Washington Post today.
Quote, the owners of Daniel Defense, the manufacturer of the rifle apparently used in the massacre of 21 people at an elementary school in Valdez, Texas, are deep-pocketed Republicans' owners, giving to candidates and committees at the federal and state level aligned against limits on access to assault rifles and other semi-automatic weapons.
The owners of the Georgia-based company have donated more than $70,000 directly to GOP candidates for federal office this election cycle, according to review of filings with the FEC.
Daniel Defense itself gave $100,000 last year to a PAC backing incumbent Republican senators.
The spending by Marvin Daniel and his wife, Cindy Daniel, illustrates the financial clout of the gun industry.
Even as political spending by the NRA has declined in recent years, and it shows how surge in gun sales during COVID have empowered manufacturers to expand their marketing and political advocacy.
Experts say, oh, well, if the experts say so, well, then that means...
First of all, this is what we call elementary logic.
If you are a gun manufacturer, you are going to support people who are in favor of your business continuing to thrive.
You are probably a believer in the Second Amendment and a believer that people have a right to defend themselves with your weaponry.
Is it a shock that you support this party?
Why would you not support them?
What, are you going to support the people who are literally saying that you're a murderer?
Who want to make you liable for the use of weapons that you designed for self-defense to murder kids?
Like, those are the people you're supposed to give them?
What are you supposed to do?
Come on.
But the idea is, again, that it really is about the Republicans, right?
The Republicans are evil, this company is evil.
You can have your life destroyed at any moment, by the way, by any one of these members of the media.
Any moment.
If your business comes under fire from the media, they will immediately dig up any donation you ever gave, and then they will attempt to punish you on the front page of their newspaper.
Because this is not journalism, it is just activism.
Timothy Lytton, a law professor at Georgia State University, says the ability of the industry to use money to advance its political agenda has increased given the dramatic rise in firearm sales we've seen over the last two or three years.
So in other words, we can't actually show that anybody's been paid off or that any bribery occurs.
We can't show that that's a thing that happens.
What we can show is that people are buying more guns.
Well, did it ever occur to Democrats?
The reason over the last couple of years that people particularly have been buying a lot of guns is because they don't feel safe because you undermine the cops in every community in the United States.
My wife and I thought seriously of buying additional guns, specifically because of the riots in California, that were predominantly backed by major Democrats who refused to condemn them.
But apparently we must have been paid by Daniel Defense or something.
That's the only rationale for this.
Meanwhile, you have the New York Times doing its own version of journal activism.
On the front page, quote, where Senate Republicans stand on gun legislation.
How about where Senate Democrats stand on hardening school safety standards?
Where Democrats stand on putting armed guards in schools to protect your kids the same way the Democrats protect their money?
I don't see that article from the New York Times, but again, they get to define the narrative.
Always and forever, they define the narrative.
It's one of the great frustrations of life, is that whenever something happens, everybody on the right is expected to play defense.
When there is a shooting at a Buffalo supermarket by a white supremacist who identifies as neither right nor left, you, normal everyday Republican voter, or you, independent voter who may not back a Democrat in this election cycle, you're forced on the defensive to explain why you don't back that guy, and why you don't back white supremacy, and why he doesn't reflect your ideology.
When there is a shooting, By a person with obvious serious mental issues.
In Texas, Marine school kids, you will be placed on defensive to explain why you do not back this.
Because they get to define the narrative.
This is what the New York Times does, quote.
The New York Times reached out on Wednesday and Thursday to all 50 Republicans in the Senate to see whether they would support a pair of House-passed measures to strengthen background checks for gun buyers.
Within hours of the elementary school shooting in Ubalde, Senate Democrats moved quickly to clear the way for possible votes on the two bills.
That's a lie, because Senator Chuck Schumer says that he is not going to push those bills for at least another couple of weeks.
The legislation would expand criminal background checks to would-be purchasers on the internet and at gun shows, and give the FBI more time to investigate gun buyers flagged by the instant background check system.
Okay, so that's not actually what the legislation does.
It prevents people If I want to sell a gun to my brother-in-law, for example, it would prevent me from doing that by creating a full-scale federal gun registry, so that if the gun got transferred from me to my brother-in-law, and then it was found at the scene of a crime, they could prosecute me.
That's what that would be about.
That's not... If you buy a gun over the internet, you have to... I've done it.
You have to go to a federally licensed firearms dealer to pick up the gun, and they do a background check on you before you are allowed to take it home.
The vast majority of Republicans, according to the New York Times, have opposed gun safety legislation for years, banding together to block its consideration or refusing to bring it up.
Any deal in the 50-50 Senate would need the support of at least 10 Republicans.
Most Republicans who have responded to the Times so far have either declined to take a position or signaled they would oppose the measures, citing concerns about infringing on the rights of gun owners.
All but one Democrat is supportive, Senator Joe Manchin.
So again, Democrats propose a thing, now Republicans explain why you don't support it.
Explain.
And then the New York Times has an entire piece in which it's just, this headline is just a lie.
Uvalde had prepared for school shootings.
It did not stop the rampage.
Really?
Did they prepare?
How well were they prepared?
How'd that preparation go?
In August 2020, law enforcement officers from five agencies converged inside the hallways of a school in Uvalde, Texas, their guns drawn, role-playing how they would halt a gunman.
The training, detailed in documents reviewed by the New York Times, was part of an overhaul of security preparedness in Uvalde and across much of Texas.
Uvalde school officials were doubling their budget for security, updating protocols, adding officers to the district's police department.
As the city's separate police force dispatched its SWAT team in tactical gears to learn the layout of school buildings.
But none of the extensive preparations halted the rampage of an 18-year-old gunman who entered a Novaldi elementary school this week and killed 19 children and two teachers.
Again, this entire article is directed at the idea that no matter what you do to train cops, no matter how many armed guards you put on it, it's going to have to be gun laws that solves the problem.
But obviously none of this was implemented.
Obviously none of this mattered.
There is little evidence nationally, says the New York Times, that the dollars poured into school security measures have decreased gun violence in schools, according to a 2019 study co-written by Yagdish Khubachandani, a professor of public health at New Mexico State University.
These security measures are not effective and they are not catching up to the ease of access with which people are acquiring guns in the pandemic.
So I feel like those are two unrelated issues.
One is, are the security protocols good?
And two is the availability of guns.
Those are two separate issues.
But we're treating them as conflated because again, the idea for the Democrats is if you talk about anything but gun control, then this means that you're in favor of shootings.
But as I have suggested, the rate of school shootings, it seems to be largely at unprotected public schools.
Gun-free zones declared by law, where there is not sufficient protection.
I don't know how many times you can argue this over and over.
They keep saying, well, the law enforcement training didn't do it.
Well, maybe the law enforcement training isn't good enough.
Maybe we haven't funded enough in order to harden these security protocols.
We don't have any of the measures that we've talked about.
But again, the idea is that the only way to do this is to widely confiscate weaponry, which is the only thing that they actually won't talk about.
They won't actually talk about what they want.
Because if they talk about what they want, they lose.
And all of this is, in the end, about how they're morally outraged.
And if you don't agree with me, you're not morally outraged.
Roxanne Gage is saying the quiet part out loud at the New York Times, quote, don't talk to me about civility.
On Tuesday morning, those children were alive.
So I get to yell at you and claim that you love dead kids because after all, I'm a good person and you're a bad person because you disagree with me.
Incivility runs through the history of this country, says Roxane Gay, founded on stolen land, built with the labor of stolen lives.
The document that governs our lives effectively denied more than half of the population the right to vote.
Again, this ties into a broader left-wing vision.
The United States is evil from its root, and civility is just a way of facilitating that evil.
So if we are uncivil, and if we are terrible to one another, and if we pretend that the people we disagree with actually like when kids get shot in school, then probably that will solve the problem.
Or, alternatively, it's not about solving the problem, it's just about making yourself feel good for doing things that are completely non-coordinated with the actual problem at hand.
Alrighty, again, none of this is going to end with any action that prevents this sort of stuff.
It's not going to.
Because, frankly, a lot of people don't want to talk about the stuff that actually solves these sorts of problems.
Instead, they want a virtue signal.
And virtue signaling may be good for election time money-raising, but it is very not good for solving problems.
All right, we'll be back here later today with additional content.
First, you can't forget to end your week by tuning in to The Andrew Klavan Show.
Drew Strohs every Friday.
He's got an exciting evening planned for you, as always.
Head on over to dailywire.com, 7 p.m.
Eastern, 6 p.m.
Central, and tune in.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Bradford Carrington, Executive Producer Jeremy Boren, Supervising Producer Mathis Glover, Production Manager Pavel Lydowsky, Associate Producer Savannah Dominguez-Morris, Editor Adam Sajevitz, Audio Mixer Mike Coromina, Hair and Makeup Artist in Wardrobe Fabiola Christina, Production Coordinator Jessica Grant.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2022.
Hey everybody, this is Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
You know, some people are depressed because the republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon's turned to blood.
But on The Andrew Klavan Show, that's where the fun just gets started.
▲
Export Selection