Gutfeld: Terrorists could care less about more gun control

When the horror of terror subsides, the media returns to its default programming: evil, evil guns.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The recent terror attacks have created pervasive fear here in America. But how serious is the threat really?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They hit us at a holiday work party, on the streets of Paris and at a Marine recruiting center. But terror attacks are actually quite rare.

Since 9/11, Islamic extremists have killed 45 Americans on U.S. soil. Five a year on average. Not even close to the 11,000 Americans killed every year by gun violence.


Yes, and cars kill 33,000 people a year as well -- so what's your point? That terror is but a trifle when compared to evil firearms? But as gun ownership rises, the gun homicide rate plummets by 50 percent over two decades. So that means more guns, less deaths.

But I get it: Mass shootings are truly awful. So let's say we satisfy the president and take all those guns away. Then what's left for the terrorists then? How about box cutters on a jet? Pressure cookers, car bombs, pipe bombs, Sarin gas, small explosive hidden in underwear? Bio-poisons?

You see, the armies of the apocalypse hate guns, too. To them, they're inefficient for Armageddon. Guns don't kill thousands or millions at a pop. That's why gun control doesn't resonate with the terrorist or the sober realist who gets the threat.

If the president were honest with himself, he'd wish that guns were all terrorists had, for that's surmountable. But the scarier stuff being planned for mass death may not be.

I would plead with sane liberals -- Juan -- to agree that this apocalyptic goal indeed exists and join us in stopping it. But if you don't, you abdicate the battle over human existence to fiends. The sooner we, as a country, unify over this cause -- be you left, right, libertarians, librarians -- the more likely our world will survive.

Until then, we reside in a world of erratic mayhem, lucky that all we have for now are shootings.