DC Police Chief: Guns Are the Best Way to Survive Terrorist Attacks… But You Can’t Have Any!

Guns save lives. They take lives, too, but when a madman is on a rampage, 911 is often flooded with calls from people hoping, praying that a “good guy with a gun” arrives in time to stop the carnage.

Unfortunately, the “good guys” often arrive too late for some.

As terrorists plot our nation’s demise and as ruthless Islamic jihadists utilize the West’s liberal policies to infiltrate borders, it’s important to consider how we can best stop terrorist attacks. When an “Allahu Akbar”-shouting jihadists begins his rampage, the best means of survival come from well-placed shots at center mass.

Even Washington D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier admits this fact. However, though she admits that fighting the attacker might be the best means of survival, she and the rest of D.C.’s policymakers continued to deny hundreds-of-thousands of D.C. resident their constitutional rights and the means of self-defense.

As we continue to see the ruthless barbarity of terrorist attacks like the ones recently witnessed in Paris, police departments across the nation are reconsidering the traditional advice of “hide and cower” as terrorists are often prone to execute indiscriminately.

In an interview with Anderson Cooper, Lanier explains,

“Your options are run, hide, or fight,” says Lanier. “If you’re in a position to try and take the gunman down, to take the gunman out, it’s the best option for saving lives before police can get there.”

The wisdom offered by Lanier is a departure from the advice of yesteryear as it has become clear that terrorists are uninterested in hostages or demands, but to kill as many as possible.

“That’s kind of counterintuitive to what cops always tell people, right? We always tell people, ‘Don’t…don’t take action. Call 911. Don’t intervene in the robbery’…we’ve never told people, ‘Take action.’ It’s a different…scenario.”

Lanier is absolutely correct. While it may be terrifying, the best route to surviving a terrorist attack is to fight back and it is preferable to do so with a firearm.

While Lanier may be offering sage advice, her conduct is hypocritical. Washington, D.C., remains incredibly hostile to Second Amendment rights and those who dare to exercise them. Only after multiple lawsuits and a Supreme Court ruling did the nation’s capital allow themselves to be dragged kicking and screaming into loosening their decades-old unconstitutional gun laws.

Though they now technically allow concealed carry permits, the city requires as astounding 18 hours of instruction and costly fees. Further, to gain one’s Second Amendment rights, one must plead their case to law enforcement and show a “good reason” why they should be allowed a concealed carry permit.

As of September, D.C., a city of nearly 700,000 people, has approved 44 permits.

While Lanier offers advice on how to best survive a terrorist attack, she is simultaneously instrumental in denying the vast majority of citizens in her city the ability to defend themselves against such an attack.

That is beyond unconscionable; it is downright cruel.

About the Author

Greg Campbell
Greg Campbell
An unapologetic patriot and conservative, Greg emerged within the blossoming Tea Party Movement as a political analyst dedicated to educating and advocating for the preservation of our constitutional principles and a free-market solution to problems birthed by economic liberalism. From authoring scathing commentaries to conducting interviews with some of the biggest names in politics today including party leaders, activists and conservative media personalities, Greg has worked to counter the left’s media narratives with truthful discussions of the biggest issues affecting Americans today. Greg’s primary area of focus is Second Amendment issues and the advancement of honest discussion concerning the constitutional right that protects all others. He lives in the Northwest with his wife, Heather, and enjoys writing, marksmanship and the outdoors.

Send this to friend