When questioned about Texas shooting, a bunch of idiotic things fall out of Trump’s mouth
Trump is unwilling to address gun control, even after the second massacre in his barely 10 month presidency. When asked about whether he’d consider the same “extreme vetting” he’s pushing for immigrants trying to come into America for those people trying to buy a gun — he really doubled-down on stupidity.
Not only did he say that gun control would have made “no difference” in the shooting in Sutherland, he also claimed that it would have left hundreds more dead.
Yes, he actually said that.
Trump on civilian who intervened in Texas shooting: “If he didn’t have a gun, instead of having 26 dead, you would have had hundreds more.” pic.twitter.com/K67H8HpF9J
— CNN (@CNN) November 7, 2017
A reporter asked, “You’ve talked about wanting to put extreme vetting into the people trying to come into the United States, but I wonder if you would consider extreme vetting for people trying to buy a gun?”
“Trying to what?” Trump asks.
“Buy a gun,” she reiterates.
“Well you’re bringing up a situation that probably shouldn’t be discussed too much right now, we should let a little time go by, but okay, if you feel like that’s an appropriate question even though we’re in the heart of South Korea I will certainly answer your question.”
“We should let a little time go by.” How long? A month? Five weeks after the deadliest mass shooting in modern history, yet another massacre — this time at a church — happened. We don’t have the luxury of time, you passive-aggressive garbage human.
He continues, “If you did what you’re suggesting, there would have been no difference three days ago, and you might not have had that very brave person, who happened to have a gun or a rifle in his truck and shoot him and hit him and neutralize him.”
Okay, hold on. If there were extreme vetting, there could very well have been a difference here. An Air Force “mistake” kept Devin Kelley off a database that would’ve prevented him from purchasing a gun. The shooter had a domestic violence conviction and was dishonorably discharged. And yes, we still would have had that “very brave person” who fired at Kelley. He’s a licensed former National Rifle Association instructor. He’d make it through extreme vetting. And he didn’t have his rifle “in his truck.” He had it secured in a gun safe, in his home.
“I can only say this, if he didn’t have a gun, instead of having 26 dead, you would have had hundreds more dead,” Trump continues. “So that’s the way I feel about it. Not gonna help.”
Once again, WRONG. Stephen Willeford, the hero Trump is speaking of here, is licensed to carry his weapon. And he retrieved that weapon from a gun safe before running out and firing at the shooter. These are all scenarios that would still exist after the gun safety and control measures we are all begging for.
“And are you considering any kind of gun control policy going forward,” the reporter again asks Trump.
“The city with the strongest gun laws in our nation is Chicago, and it’s a disaster. It’s a total disaster,” Trump answers. “Just remember, if this man didn’t have a gun or rifle, you’d be talking about a much worse situation.”
Okay, only HE WOULD STILL HAVE HIS RIFLE. If we had stricter gun control measures, HE WOULD STILL HAVE HIS RIFLE. So what is even your point here, reality-star-turned-president?
Common sense gun laws are not going to prevent law-abiding citizens from owning guns. It’s beyond time we all realize this. We are on the same team. No one should be against strict background checks for guns, and no one should be against safe storage laws. Let’s get it done.
There are only two scenarios here. Either Trump is dumb as a box of hair, and really doesn’t see how his reasoning is flawed, or he’s purposefully trying to deflect the situation by saying things he knows are not true. Either way — we’re screwed. We either have a liar or an idiot for a president.
And frankly, it’s probably both.