California synagogue attack reveals impotence of gun control laws; Proves on-site armed response saves lives

Whenever a madman uses a gun to attempt mass murder, gun ban extremists say the following:

• we need universal background checks!
• we need to limit magazine capacity!
• we need to ban "assault" weapons!
• we need a red flag extreme risk protection order law!

This, the extremists say, is the only way to stop these kinds of things from happening.

On the other hand, these extremists insist that our suggestion - to have armed first responders on site so that we can end these attacks faster - will never work.

Every single claim these gun ban extremists make was exposed as a lie on Saturday, April 27, 2019, when an anti-Trump, conservative-hating madman attacked the Chabad of Poway synagogue north of San Diego, California.

Every. Single. One.

That's because California already has a universal background check gun registration scheme in place.

California already has a law limiting magazine capacity to ten rounds.

California already has a law banning so-called "assault" weapons.

California already has a "red flag" extreme risk protection order law.

And despite the extremists' claims that having armed personnel onsite won't help, police are saying two men - an armed off-duty Border Patrol agent and an unarmed Army vet - confronted the killer and forced him to leave, preventing a greater loss of life.

Since California already has all of these things in place, and since NOT ONE of them prevented this attack or many others in the Golden State, why would anyone in their right mind suggest, as a response to the attack, that we need any one of these California-style laws here when they clearly don't work there? Why would anyone continue to object to efforts to have an armed presence in public spaces when it clearly made a difference in this attack?

The Poway synagogue shooting is tragic. Any loss of life is horrific. But the fact is that this attack turned out about as good as it possibly could have because an armed responder was present and able to respond immediately - NOT because of ANY of California's many gun control laws.

A proper response to this attack is to encourage an even greater number of armed law-abiding citizens in public spaces. A proper response to this attack is to call for an end to mandatory no-guns victim zones.

On the other hand, a cowardly, opportunistic response to this attack is to make the claim that gun control laws which are already in place in California, and which have failed to make one bit of difference in attacks like these, are somehow an answer that should be replicated elsewhere.

Chad D. Baus served as Buckeye Firearms Association Secretary from 2013-2019. He is co-founder of BFA-PAC, and served as its Vice Chairman for 15 years. He is the editor of BuckeyeFirearms.org, which received the Outdoor Writers of Ohio 2013 Supporting Member Award for Best Website, and is also an NRA-certified firearms instructor.