Liberals are expressing gratitude that the Manhattan terrorist did not have a real gun during his attack, and some are even giving credit to New York’s strict gun laws.
Nicholas Kristof, a New York Times columnist and frequent guest on MSNBC, asserted that the death toll would have been higher if the terrorist had an “assault rifle.” Kristof also suggested the only reason the terrorist did not have an assault rifle is because you cannot purchase one in New York City.
The NYC terrorist had a pellet gun and a paintball gun. Good thing that in NYC he couldn’t buy assault rifles, or the toll would be higher.
— Nicholas Kristof (@NickKristof) October 31, 2017
There is no evidence thus far that the attacker, who killed 8 people with a truck, ever tried to purchase a firearm in the state of New York or elsewhere.
“He literally didn’t have a gun so the gun control in NYC worked,” an MTV actor asserted.
They weren’t real guns. He literally didn’t have a gun so the gun control in NYC worked.
— Giullian Gioiello (@Giullian_G) October 31, 2017
Sen. Richard Blumenthal said on CNN shortly after the attack that it was “fortunate” that the attacker didn’t have an “assault weapon” because more people would have died otherwise.
Or maybe, he would have had a real gun instead of a pellet gun. Let’s ask NYPD how they feel about the fact that he wasn’t armed. https://t.co/4zFWDL1EK6
— Kendra Pierre-Louis (@KendraWrites) October 31, 2017
Horrifying, heartbreaking, and so very close by. I’m just glad he didn’t have a real gun. https://t.co/jSahArgLBu
— Nicholas Thompson (@nxthompson) October 31, 2017
WATCH: THE LATEST ON NYC ATTACK