How Would the San Bernardino Attack Been Different had Several of the Partygoers Been Armed with Concealed and Adequately Powered Pistols?

In the wake of the Paris attacks and the San Bernardino massacre, policy makers continue to play word games with the word terrorism. As I write this article, lawmakers and political hacks are advising caution in jumping to conclusions when describing this attack as terrorism. – even in the face of the facts as they filter out.

However, federal, state, and local politicians had no problem in calling for tougher gun laws while the barrels of the rifles used to commit these heinous acts were still warm from the barrage of fire these savages poured into a San Bernardino holiday party. Really?

Let me ask a different set of questions.

How would the San Bernardino attack been different had several of the partygoers been armed with concealed and adequately powered pistols?

What about the Paris attacks? How would the outcome of the tragedy at the Bataclan nightclub been different if there had been 10-20 trained and armed citizens in the crowd?

And why do these attacks continue keep happening in “gun-free” zones?

Could a small handful of armed citizens succeed in thwarting violence and terrorism where the hundreds of billions of dollars western governments spend on intelligence, surveillance, and counter-terrorism occasionally fail?

Why are policy makers so intent on disarming the citizenry of these Unites States?

Consider the following:

Vehicles related crashes caused over 32,700 deaths in 2013 – over 30,000 every year. Why not outlaw passenger vehicles?

Of the causes of death in these United States, gun deaths simply don’t compare with the leading causes of death – including heart disease (611,000+ deaths), cancer (584,000+ deaths), or chronic respiratory disease (149,000+ deaths). Why isn’t more being done to combat these killers?

Of the firearms related deaths in the US, approximately 60% of the 32,000+ are suicides. Approximately 11,000 deaths are determined to be homicides – with the majority of these deaths (estimates range between 40-80 percent) being gang and/or drug-related shootings. The vast majority of these shooting deaths were caused by pistols, not the AR style rifles the press and policy makers have utilized as the visual aide for their coordinated attack on the Second Amendment. Can you say, “scare tactic?”

Websites such as “” report the other side of the gun issue, claiming:

  1. Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes per year – 6,849 per day.
  2. Property crime rates are falling as legal handgun ownership rises.
  3. Everyday, 400,000 life-threatening crimes are prevented using firearms.
  4. Sixty percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the potential victim was armed.
  5. Forty percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the potential victim might be armed.
  6. Nearly 60% of burglaries in Britain (tough gun control laws) are “hot burglaries” committed while the home is occupied – by contrast, in he U.S., “hot burglary” rates hover around 13%.
  7. In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the home. The residential burglary rate dropped 89% the following year.

Today, the government estimates that there are approximately 310 million guns in the US – with as many as one in every two households owning a firearm.

The idea that the government could ever quickly and cost-effectively collect all these firearms is hard to imagine. Policy makers insist that deporting 12 million people is nearly impossible and cost-prohibitive, how then do these same people ever hope to collect 310 million firearms (or any fraction of that number), and better yet, why would we want to do so?

The second amendment of the US Constitution provides for the legal ownership of firearms. Firearms, according to criminals and various data (including data from Kennesaw, GA and the “hot burglaries” data from the UK cited in this article), are a deterrent to crime.

What do you think? Sound off here!

Leave a Reply


  1. Matt Scarbro

    Well said. I couldn’t agree more. Criminals (or in the case of San Bernadino, Terrorists) will take the path of least resistance in carrying out their attacks. The “gun-free zones” are prime targets to increase the casualty rate of their attack. We need to practice self-reliance for our defense and understand that we can’t rely on laws to provide protection. A few armed citizens with the proper training may not completely stop attacks from occurring but they definitely wouldn’t have been the high-casualty events that they became.

  2. Nita

    In Switzerland, all citizens are armed. They are their own internal army. You don’t hear of violence there. Imagine that!

  3. Alf

    AMEN coach!

    The overwhelming amount of statistics on guns and long term statistical studies (read the book “More guns, less crime”) support these common sense facts.
    However, we are facing an additional threat: Armed UNTRAINED citizens.
    As a responsible citizen you should not only own several guns (home defense and concealed carry), but you also should be trained in using them.
    This DOES NOT mean to go to a gun range every other month and shoot 2 mags on a static target. This is not training.
    Training includes but is not limited to:
    – understanding your guns
    – being able to take them apart (not only field strip) and clean them
    – understand gun safety
    – understanding mental challenges when using deadly force
    – understanding of ones own behavior under stress
    – utilizing guns under stress
    – mental preparedness for utilizing deadly force and dealing with the outcome
    – firearm tactics
    – dry fire
    – daily training
    And hundreds more things

    When you buy a gun or train yourself to Beatle to defend yourself and your loved ones against the threats in this broken world – remember it is a lifestyle choice and change. You will live on in orange state forever. You will become a sheepdog and trying to recruit other sheepdogs.

    It is my opinion that the training to be a powerful, effective sheepdog is more mental than physical. While the physical component (fitness, aggression, and technique) is definitely important, the mental part will make the decision for you when it counts.