Posted on 04/25/2007 12:25:44 AM PDT by goldstategop
I’m sick of liberals using shooting massacres to advance their baseless theories on gun control. If Monday’s massacre at Virginia Tech University proved anything, it was that current gun laws do nothing to stop deranged killers, while leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless. Yet, every time a mass killing takes place, police barely have time to get an accurate body count before liberals start issuing hysterical demands for a ban on guns.
As the nightmare at Virginia Tech unfolded, many people forgot that the gun control debate actually began there a year ago. Last spring, a student with a valid concealed carry permit was punished for bringing a gun to class. But a campus shooting over the summer prompted many students to push for fewer restrictions on concealed weapons. Virginia Tech administrators refused to even consider the idea, ridiculing proponents as “crazy” and “irrational.” The gun ban remained in place.
Tragically, the “NO FIREARMS” signs posted throughout campus failed to stop Cho Seung-Hui, a senior English major with a history of psychological disturbance. After fatally shooting two students in a dormitory, Seung-Hui proceeded to a classroom building, where he gunned down 30 people before the SWAT team could arrive.
What might have happened if the student punished for carrying a legal firearm had been in the classroom building that day? Would Seung-Hui have been shot or restrained before his murderous rampage could advance?
We’re not supposed to ask. Ignoring the obvious, the gun control lobby simply demands that government “do something” – by piling on restrictions or outlawing guns altogether. In both cases, gun control enables killers while disarming the innocent.
Not one legal restriction currently in place in Virginia stopped Seung-Hui from purchasing handguns and carrying them into Virginia Tech’s “gun free” zone. In fact, restrictions on the sale or use of guns have never been proven to stop killers on a deadly rampage: the teenage gunmen at Columbine High School violated at least 17 state and federal statutes related to firearms. The only people who leave their guns behind when entering a “no firearms” area are law-abiding citizens who might use handguns to save lives.
Liberals stubbornly deny that concealed weapons serve any defensive purpose, repeating tired canards such as “handguns only exist to kill people.” True, but they came in handy at Appalachian State University in 2002, when a disgruntled student who had already killed three people brought a gun to the School of Law Building. According to economist John Lott, author of The Bias Against Guns, the shooter was subdued by two students with legally registered firearms. If Appalachian State had passed similarly useless mandates designating “gun free” zones, the massacre at Virginia Tech might not have been the first to shock the nation.
Realizing that restricted areas and bans on concealed weapons aren’t saving lives, gun-control advocates propose a more extreme solution: we must ban all guns. To gauge how successful that plan would be, America should look to England, where private ownership of guns is illegal.
Surprising no one except “experts” like Rosie O’Donnell, British criminals still manage to get hold of firearms. In 2002, the BBC reported that the gun ban “seems to have had little impact in the criminal underworld. No one knows how many illegal firearms there are in Britain, although estimates range from between 200,000 to several million.” And a report by England’s Sunday Express concluded that “guns are available to any criminally minded individual.”
Notably, Britain also doesn’t have an unpatrolled, 2,000 mile southern border through which illegal products can be easily transported. If the U.S. government can’t keep an enormous amount of drugs and human contraband from being smuggled into the country, why do we think they could keep guns out?
A nation with neither guns nor violence is ideal. Unfortunately, it only exists in a place known as “liberals’ fantasy world.” Despite assumptions to the contrary, guns are much more difficult to get than they were a few decades ago – especially for law-abiding citizens. And yet the carnage continues.
The most realistic solution is to permit responsible people to carry concealed weapons. With proper training, they can use firearms to deter people bent on committing unspeakable acts of violence.
We can only hope that extreme gun-control advocates stop blathering about America’s “gun culture” and “the cycle of violence” and realize that concealed weapons save lives. Until then, victims will be crawling on their bellies and blocking gunmen with their own bodies until someone else with a gun can come rescue them
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
It should say:
"Tragically,
Predictably, the “NO FIREARMS” signs posted throughout campus failed to stop Cho Seung-Hui, a senior English major with a history of psychological disturbance."
Also, now potential mass murderers know to buy some chain and padlocks to make sure they can trap a building full of unarmed, intended victims. The victims stay trapped and the police are locked out.
Please forward this TRUE STORY to everyone you can. May Diane Feinstein, Rosy O’Donnell, Hillary Clinton and all other politico-celebrity types who work so sanctimoniously to disarm the average American, while they themselves maintain their armed guards, one day find themselves permanently ensconced in that special place in hell reserved for the hypocritical, self-serving elitists who denigrate personal
self-defense while they hire others to do their wet work for them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j73SsNFgBO4
Just another day with Gun Control, January 16, 2000
by Jim Houck
The movie I went to see today, at the request of my film managers, was Hurricane starring Denzel Washington. I write feature films. I write TV ads for the largest advertising agencies on earth for clients like Toyota, Ford, Sony and Coke. I am the “Hollywood crowd” that the liberal press lies about so often.
I arrived early at the Torrance, California AMC 20 Theaters, so I bought my ticket and sat on a bench just outside the front lobby under a palm tree for about half an hour, enjoying the many different faces, the playing kids, the adults.
A flood of Californians streamed out suddenly. A young girl had been attacked by a criminal who had just shot her.
“Is the shooter stopped?” I asked, reaching for my Heckler & Koch USP .45, running for the lobby with the intent to kill the criminal before he could injure or kill more of We the People.
“No, nobody can do anything! He’s just walking around like he owns the place!” a California woman cried, trembling like a mouse before the lion. And indeed, the criminal did.
I ripped up my leather jacket and found my holster missing. I didn’t have my .45 with me today. I’d opted not to take it just this one time at the advice of the local Californians, avoid the hassle of the California cops if they discover it, I thought, save the massive court costs of exercising my right. “Don’t get caught, the street officers will hook you and book you and let the judges sort it out,” a friend and local California police officer had told me repeatedly. Besides, it was three in the afternoon next door to Palos Verdes Estates, one of the most affluent and lowest crime areas in the United States.
My decision to leave my self defense at home very likely cost the young man who would be shot next his life. I have extensive, combat firearms training. I’ve been in three gun battles with criminals in New Orleans and Miami in the defense of myself twice and a Miami police officer once, and I’ve never missed nor have I lost. The criminals did.
Of course the criminal didn’t know these things. He didn’t know he was in a “low crime” area and he didn’t seem to care that it was three in the afternoon on a Sunday. All he knew was that he was operating in Senator Diane Feinstein¹s wet dream, a theater of perfect Gun Control. Not one citizen in the large crowd of moms, dads, young men or young women had a firearm with which to defend themselves. So they ran. But the funny thing is, they didn’t run very fast and the certainly didn’t run very far, in fact, many basically hurried and stood around and complained about not being able to finish their show. You see, criminals being in full control is nothing new in California. It’s not news. It didn’t excite these folks.
I stopped outside the lobby doors. No gun. No way to fight this criminal, I thought.
The shooter fired again, dropping a young man next. Well, the California people voted this idiocy through, they repeatedly elect servants like Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer as state senators, people who take away their rights to self defense and the defense of their families, I thought, let them deal with the consequences of their decisions. Of course the criminal walked out the back of the AMC 20 Theaters and vanished long before the local police could wade through the Sunday traffic and do the paperwork. At least they were nice enough to come. They didn’t have to. They responded as a “courtesy” according to the Supreme Court. They have no legal duty to protect the individual from criminal assault or murder. Something surprisingly few people know, especially in California.
I looked at the downed young man. He would die, judging from my own personal
experiences as a shooter of over 20 years and where the criminal had injured him. The girl, barring very unusual circumstances, she would live, judging from where the criminal had injured her and her loss of blood.
The police put pressure on the injuries to try and reduce the bleeding from the criminal attack. Another courtesy service.
I sat back down on the bench and watched the Californians as they angrily demanded their ticket money be refunded, the victims of the criminal lying ten yards from them, moaning, dying.
A man with his wife in the line of angry movie patrons turned to me and growled, “I’m surprised Feinstein isn’t here already. And the liberal mainstream press. You know, we carry our guns anyway and we didn’t bring them today because it’s such a hassle to have to hide them all the time from the local cops. What a bunch of shit. Just look at that guy. He’s probably going to die.”
Thanks, Senator Feinstein. As a resident of Florida, in Los Angeles working on feature film scripts with my L.A. based managers, it’s interesting to see how your Prohibition on self defense, “Gun Control” works. Of course, had you been there to see The Hurricane, your armed bodyguards would have used their semi-automatic, high capacity “assault weapons” to stop the criminal dead in his tracks, which is what the bastard richly deserved. Funny, Diane, with all your SB 23s and SB 15s and Prohibition on self defense, the criminal still badly hurt and perhaps killed two young kids who just went to see a movie on a quiet Sunday afternoon. Why call it “gun control?” Why not rename it “defenseless sheep” or the “citizen massacre laws?” Or maybe just simple “bullshit.”
Wish you could have been there Diane to see how your idiotic laws work in real life. It was memorable.
Jim Houck is the Creative Director of Citizens of America
I've said this many times. Let's suppose that everyone - criminals included - turned in their guns some February 30th. How long until some of the criminals had second thoughts and could get new ones? Not long at all - probably a matter of 2 days at most. Why? Because there are already many established organizations, networks and routes established to smuggle in drugs. If the criminals can smuggle in millions of bales of marijuana each year, they can smuggle in millions of guns (INSIDE the bales, if necessary).
Gun control won't work any more than Prohibition did or the ban on drug has/is. In fact, it'll be worse - at least those consuming the alcohol or drugs usually just affect themselves. If guns were prohibited, if the penalty for having a .22 revolver were as harsh as for having a full auto submachine gun, then guess what people will demand and get? That's right, gun prohibition will see at least many hundreds of thousands with full autos manufactured in Brazil, the Phillipines, India, Pakistan, etc. Is that what these folks want? If so, then they're actually pro-gun, which would be the height of irony.
“A nation with neither guns nor violence is ideal.”
Not exactly. The ideal would be a nation without violence that still has easy access to guns for recreational purpose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.