Elizabeth Warren, for a time, looked like a real contender for the Democratic nomination later this year. However, her campaign has kind of fizzled out a bit since October when she briefly took the lead in the polls. She’s still a lock on third place, though, which isn’t an awful place to be this far out from the meat of the race.

One of the things we’re don’t expect from anyone in the race, however, is for them to answer positively about gun rights. They might give a little lip service to the Second Amendment just before the push some policy that would gut it, but we don’t actually expect them to be legitimately supportive of it.

What we don’t expect, though, is for their anti-gun mentality to be so all-encompassing that they admit to preferring dead people to armed citizens, yet that’s what Elizabeth Warren basically did.

During a question and answer period, she was asked if she supported a universal concealed carry by licensed individuals who had passed a background check following the events in White Settlement.

Her answer? “No.”

She went on to claim that there’s no data to suggest that universal concealed carry makes us any safer.

Watch the whole thing for yourself.

Of course, she’s not wrong about the data. There isn’t any that says universal concealed carry makes us safer, but that’s because there is no universal concealed carry. You can’t accumulate data when data on a thing when it doesn’t exist. I’m not sure Warren knows that, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true.

However, we have plenty of data suggesting that concealed carry, in general, makes us safer, including the fact that as conceal carry took hold in this country, we started to see the high violent crime rates begin to decrease. John Lott has accumulated a mountain of data about how more guns equals less crime, but Warren and her ilk don’t want to see it.

Then there’s the very simple fact that White Settlement even happened.

Warren is quick to claim that the problem was someone could take a gun into a church, but she’s an even bigger idiot than I thought if she honestly thinks there’s a law out there that would have stopped that shooter from carrying that shotgun in that church. If laws against murder didn’t deter him, then nothing else would.

What saved lives were armed citizens, something Warren makes very clear she opposes.

In other words, Senator Elizabeth Warren, candidate for president of the United States, prefers dead Americans to live ones if living people means someone was able to carry a gun. She is perfectly OK with you and yours being gunned down in church, in a movie theater, in a school, or anywhere else on the planet so long as it also means no one was able to carry a gun to protect themselves.

That’s cold and callous.

The date on this video is January 2nd, but I just saw it. Frankly, I’m glad I didn’t see it earlier because her response is outright disgusting to me.

No, I wouldn’t have expected her to come out in support of concealed carry. That was never going to happen and we all know it. What I expected, though, was a bit of lip service and political tapdancing to at least acknowledge that a good guy with a gun did, indeed, put an end to the threat to human life but then add some kind of caveat. That’s what so many in the media have tried to do, after all.

But no. Warren would rather see all of us gunned down if it also meant no one could carry a gun to protect themselves.

It seems to me that if she were to become president, she should refuse a Secret Service detail in that case…or do rules like that only apply to us peons?

Hat tip: Faithwire.