What the "Anti-Gun Freaks" Won't Tell You

“According to the FBI, states with ‘shall-issue’ right-to-carry laws have a 26 percent lower total violent crime rate, a 20 percent lower homicide rate, a 39 percent lower robbery rate and a 22 percent lower aggravated assault rate than those states that do not allow their citizens to legally carry guns.” Do they REALLY think the way to self-defense is to DISarm yourself? How STUPID is that? They tell you that when a lot of innocent citizens are armed, we will have a “wild west atmosphere” where people solve all their problems with guns. That’s a patent insult that assumes the average person has NO CONTROL over their actions and access to guns will cause more deaths and violence. That’s a LOAD. In Florida, where they DO have “must issue” laws for concealed carry permits, violent crime of ALL kinds has PREDICTABLY gone down significantly; while violence where gun laws are tight, it has gone UP significantly. This is not spoken of in the liberal media because they don’t want you to know it. (Just common sense)

"Taser Death"

Twice in recent days people have been shocked and have died. The “quick” judgment is that the shock killed him. That is impossible. Stun guns cannot kill. There isn’t enough AMPERAGE to do so. I’d bet that when the autopsy results are in, it will be discovered that both these people had underlying medical problems that killed them, not the stun gun. Of course, family members will not accept this, as the stun gun is a “convenient target.” They’ll say the medical examiner is “part of the system” and ruled to “save” the cop who stunned him. MEs don’t operate that way. They find what’s there and report it. Maybe that has happened in the past, but it’s not “common.” Medical Examiners are THERE as an “oversight” to the cops, and anybody else who might kill someone, accidentally or on purpose. In one case, the man fell to his death AFTER being stunned, but the press STILL called his death as CAUSED by being “tazed.”

I’ll wait until I find out just what killed this man before I blame the stun gun the cop used. (Update: now it has come to light [thanks to Fox News] that he was on a ledge, high above the street when he was shocked, and FELL to his death. He died of “head trauma” caused by his fall. A police lieutenant and the cop who shocked him at a very bad time have been relieved of duty. It was NOT the stun gun that killed him, news reports notwithstanding). Nonetheless, news reports still say this “has brought renewed focus to the use of Tasers by police.” Maybe they ought to teach them not to use them on people precariously perched on ledges, way above the street. One thing is sure: shooting him would not have been better. (Fox News)

Going Off Half-Cocked

At Princeton University recently, they shut down the campus, sent out e-mail mass messages, and wasted hours of the cop’s time conducting a search, all because somebody saw someone with a toy plastic gun. I expect soon to hear that “authorities” are demanding even tighter anti-gun laws in response to this. I guess they will figure if a TOY gun can trigger such a response, they ought to ban it, too. This is how the “anti-gun freaks” “gin up” reasons to make new laws against gun ownership and concealed carry. They figure if ANYBODY has a gun in his possession, he’s going to kill somebody. They don’t know ANYTHING about personal responsibility and self-control because they don’t have it. Turns out it was a couple of kids (They made sure everyone knew were from "off-campus" and had no connection to the university) playing "cops and robbers." (Just common sense)

"Gun Control" IS A Crime!

It gets people killed. If just ONE person in the path of the “Alabama Killer” had been armed and had the will and training to use his/her gun, Michael McClendon would not have been able to kill as many people in his rampage before he was shot to death. It makes no difference whatever whether or not the gun or guns he was using were legally obtained and legally carried, or were bought out of the trunk of an illegal gun seller in an alley somewhere. Someone bent on killing others doesn’t worry about the “legality” of the guns he has. What makes ANYBODY think a law against carrying or owning a gun will stop, or even slow down a criminal whose life is spent breaking the law, is beyond me. All such laws do is give such people a ready supply of “easy targets.” Even people who are directly threatened have trouble getting guns. I remember two stories of women who, threatened by their spouses, went in two different directions; one applied for a gun permit and was told to wait fifteen days to get it. She was shot to death by her boyfriend the next day. The other woman wasn’t so stupid. She bought an illegal gun and, when her ex-husband tried to kill her, she shot him to death. They tried to charge her with carrying a gun illegally, but the jury wasn’t stupid, either. There was no question about self-defense. In Israel, EVERYBODY carries a gun and my favorite “mind-picture” is of an old Jewish lady standing over a Palestinian terrorist, pumping bullets into his dead body. We need such gun laws” here so more of us can stay alive when crazies start shooting up the landscape. (Yahoo News/AP)

It's Patently Illogical!

Disarming yourself as a means to self defense is NOT LOGICAL. But that’s the policy the “anti-gun freaks” have (at least, until they get shot). Carry that into foreign policy, and you have this: “The outgoing director of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog warns major powers such as the U.S. to unilaterally disarm or be blamed for the doubling of nuclear weapons states in a few years.” Does he really think the irrational leaders of such currently nuclear-armed countries will just “back off” if we disarm ourselves? What the hell is he THINKING? They will attack us IMMEDIATELY, as soon as they know for sure we have no defenses. How can people who pretend to be so smart be so STUPID? (IBD Editorials)

"Irrational?"

"Sens. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), Jack Reed (D-RI) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) have joined Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and victims and family members of the Virginia Tech tragedy, to introduce legislation to eliminate the private transfers of firearms and close the nation's ‘gun show loophole.’ ‘There is no rational reason to oppose closing the loophole. The reason it's still not closed is simple: the continuing power of the special interest gun lobby in Washington’ Sen. Lautenberg said, ignoring the Constitution.” What’s irrational about logic? Logically, what makes them think criminals, whose very life is dedicated to breaking the law (and crazy mass murderers) will OBEY a law that says they can’t be armed? No; we’re not “irrational,” these congresspeople are irrational to think that ANY law will stop people with evil intentions from getting their guns out of someone’s trunk in an alley somewhere. Experience has shown that where the gun laws are the tightest, illicit guns are the most easy to obtain. (Just common sense and logic)

Another "Victory" for Gun Control!

Twelve or more people are dead in New York City at an immigration center. There was NOBODY there with a gun and the will to use it to stop him. That’s because New York has some of the most restrictive anti-gun laws in the country. Did that stop this guy? Not for a second. When a criminal wants to use a gun to commit a crime, NO amount of laws that say he can’t do it while armed are going to stop him. Only the presence of someone in the crowd who can kill him early in his “shooting spree” and reduce the death toll. Only his not knowing if there was someone there who is armed so he can’t target the only armed person he knows is there, first, as the Columbine killers did. Only laws that allow honest people to be armed and able to defend themselves from such people will help. But ignorant politicians will never allow that. Even if this killer’s gun or guns were licensed, it makes no difference. If they were not, it’s the same. Anti-gun laws, as we know them, are STUPID and have KILLED many people. As long as honest people are not allowed to be armed for self-defense, we will continue to hear about such shooting sprees, and they will be successful. This is the second such shooting spree I’ve heard about in as many days. The other one was in a “REST HOME,” fergawd’sake! How many people have to die before the “anti-gun freaks” wake up? (Yahoo News/AP)

It's NOT An "Iraq War!

Iraq is just ONE THEATER in an overall “war against terrorists.” It doesn’t matter what we do in Iraq, that war will go on and on until we’ve killed or crippled enough Islamic terrorists to make it impossible for them to continue to attack us. Afghanistan will be the next “theater” in that war, and I’m sure Iran will come soon after. If the “doves” in our society continue to gripe every time we make a move to win this war and this government LISTENS, we will LOSE that overall war and the Islamic terrorists will be bombing indiscriminately in the U. S., which they have not been able to do up to now because Bush kept them busy in Iraq and Afghanistan. What is it about “self defense” these “doves” don’t understand? These are the same people, no doubt, who think the way to personal self defense is to DISARM yourself while CRIMINALS, who have no problem violating a law that says they can’t be armed, see us as “easy targets.” I’m getting sick and tired of these “doves” running things while making it more dangerous for us to live. If I arm myself to avoid becoming the victim of one of these illegal guns, then I become a criminal who will go to jail if the cops find me armed. That’s a load of bull droppings. (Just common sense)

Zapping Coyotes

Coyotes are becoming a major problem in Colorado lately, coming into settled areas and attacking people and animals. Now they have come out with (“new”) device (which has actually been around for a while, designed to stop human predators) they mistakenly call a “Taser.” “Taser” is a registered trade name for one of the first of its breed, the stun gun. Just the sound scares off some animals (though maybe not human animals). But the “shocker” is that it carries a 150,000 volt bang that will put down the biggest animal, human or coyote. Works on dogs, too, and is a lot better than shooting them, according to the cops. (Just common sense)

Guns on Campus A Comforting Thought

At least to those who have been killed by insane idiots who have had no trouble getting their guns, OR bringing them on campus. What the hell makes politicians think “BANNING” guns from campuses will make them safer? What makes them think such people will OBEY a law that says they can’t be armed? People bent on killing people will NEVER have trouble getting guns, no matter how many “anti-gun” laws are passed; and they don’t give a second thought to anti-gun laws. So honest people, especially people on school campuses, are “fair game” for those weenies. If the principle of Columbine High School in Colorado had had a gun in his pocket and the will to use it when he “looked around a corner and watched one of the shooters firing into a room,” he could have “put a couple into the shooter’s head” and maybe reduced the death toll. An armed part-time security guard at a church in Colorado Springs, Colorado DID end a shooter’s rampage in her church when she shot him before he could kill more than two people there. How many times must it be proved that having more guns in the hands of responsible, honest people can reduce such shootings because the criminals won’t know for sure their intended victims won’t be armed and able to shoot back? The “anti-gun fanatics” seem to think the very presence of guns is dangerous. In actuality, the presence of guns those shooters don’t know about can stop them cold (or maybe cold and dead). For my part, if someone shoots me, I want it to be the last thing he does in HIS life. (Indianapolis Star)

Kills Intruder With His Own Gun

I'd like to hear more of this kind of story. This woman, when faced by a man with a shotgun who wanted to rob them, took it away from him and gave it to her husband, who shot and killed one of the two bumbling attackers. The cops say since they were defending themselves, they "probably" won't be charged. "Probably?" The Constitution still allows deadly force in defense of your life or family. The woman says she isn't glad someone is dead. I am. More of this kind of person should be killed. Maybe others would get the idea that people aren't going to be "easy targets" any more. (Fox News)

"Anti-Gun Fanatics" Refuted Again

"Another bogus argument of gun control extremists--that sensible concealed carry laws create an increased threat to police officers--has been refuted by statistics from the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund and published by USA Today. The number of officer fatalities due to gunfire is the lowest in 50 years, noted Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. A report out Monday said that this year, 41 officers have died from gunshot wounds, down 40 percent from the 68 who died by gunfire in 2007. Yet the number of concealed carry permits issued by the states has risen, dramatically in some areas, in the past 12 months. 'Better training and equipment have contributed to this decline,' Gottlieb stated, 'but it must be noted for the record that growing numbers of legally-armed citizens have not resulted in more police slayings. That has been one of the many lame arguments offered by gun control fanatics over the past few years when they fought against expanded concealed carry rights.’ " We refute them again and again, but they keep insisting on their flawed reasoning and their flawed assumptions. When we do it, they call us names. That’s when we know we won the argument. (CCRKBA)

"Gun Control" Doesn't Work

It didn’t work in Mumbai (formerly Bombay), India where TEN people killed HUNDREDS in a country with tight gun laws. It doesn’t work in Australia, which suffered a 300% INCREASE in gun violence after effectively BANNING guns. In America, we have periodical massacres, sometimes in schools, other times in churches and colleges. Some have been done with ILLEGAL guns; others with LICENSED guns. Nothing the anti-gun freaks have tried has worked. If someone wants to go on a shooting spree, he/she always seems able to get guns, legal or not. Whatever makes politicians think that the way to self-defense is to DISARM ourselves; or that criminals, who don’t obey laws, will obey one that says they can’t be armed, I don’t know. Stupidity, maybe? If the Columbine school principal (during their massacre) had had a gun and the will to use it when he peeked around a corner and watched one of the shooters firing into a room and could have “put a couple in him,” maybe the death toll wouldn’t have been so high. In Colorado Springs at a church, it was different. There was a female parishioner there who had been asked to bring her gun to services and act as a “part-time security agent.” She shot the shooter after only two deaths. So he killed himself, knowing it was “all over.” The point is, no amount of “gun control” has EVER been able to “control” guns. So why not allow innocent people to carry guns for self-defense? Maybe violent criminals will find something else to do if they can’t be sure their intended victims aren’t armed and ready to shoot THEM. What good are “gun laws” if they can’t get rid of guns? Only violent criminals meeting guns in the hands of their intended victims will lower gun violence. That’s an absolute. (Just common sense)

More Guns, Less Crime

That’s the name of a best-selling book and a basic truth, as some people in England are discovering. The shootings in Mumbai should have stilled forever the voices of those who think defending ourselves requires that we disarm the populace. It should have destroyed forever the MYTH of “gun control.” But that won’t shut them up. They’re not smart enough. Anybody who really thinks disarming ourselves is the way to self defense is an idiot (and that includes politicians). That’s why a think tank in England is mulling the idea that “if each of us carried a gun…” They’re taking note of the fact that every gun used in the Mumbai massacre was a “prohibited weapon” under Indian law, yet the gunmen had no trouble getting them. So where did they get them? The black market, of course. Those “gun control laws” guaranteed they would not be met with real resistance, as usual. No massacre in history ever happened where mere mortals (not cops or “government agents”) find it easy to be able to carry concealed guns (as in Florida, whose violent crime has gone down since they made it easier to carry a gun). When violent criminals can’t be sure people aren’t “carrying,” they’ll soon go into a less violent kind of crime. That’s what I’ve been preaching for years, but nobody has been listening. (Times Online)

UN Goes Ahead on Gun Control Measure

People who believe self defense involves DISARMING ourselves are idiots. They’re stupid. But that doesn’t slow down the United Nations, which thinks of itself as a “world government,” although it is NO kind of a government, and hopefully will not be one in my lifetime (admittedly short). What the hell makes them think that disarming the populace is the way to self-defense? That way lies idiocy! But you can never “shut up” the anti-gun idiots. They think they know more than the rest of us, although it’s painfully obvious to intelligent people they’re not. When are they going to “wise up?” Never, if I know the anti-gun jerks. (WTOP News)

Ireland to Ban the Glock

The Glock is the gangster’s favorite gun, so Ireland is going to ban it. Completely. Does anybody really think that will reduce the number of Glocks used in crimes in Ireland? I don’t. I think the number of Glocks in Ireland will INCREASE, as do all things banned. Remember prohibition in the U. S.? Booze in this country didn’t “disappear,” as those pushing prohibition predicted; it INCREASED exponentially. People were making booze in their BATHTUBS. Criminals will, as usual, have no problem getting Glocks in Ireland, or any other kind of gun, actually. And they will make a lot more money doing it. When you ban something, you create a black market and even more of that item is sold than ever before. Politicians (everywhere) never learn that. What idiots they are! (Herald.ie)

Finally Gave Their Guns Back

New Orleans finally gave back the guns they stole under the cover of "cleaning up" after the hurricane. But they didn't do it on their own. They fought "tooth and nail" for THREE YEARS when the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Rifle Association sued them. They shouldn't have had to file this suit in the first place, to force New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin to follow the Constitution and allow his citizens to defend themselves against the ILLEGALLY armed criminals who don't OBEY laws. The "anti-gunners," including Nagin, are doing everything in their power to DISARM honest Americans and make of them "easy targets" for criminals. What makes them think a CRIMINAL, who doesn't OBEY laws, will not be armed if they make a law against it, I don't know. All I know is, like the Chinese and Japanese in history, we must find a way to "get around" their asinine anti-gun laws. The Orientals came up with "unarmed combat." The government couldn't stop them from having their arms, legs, feet, and other effective weapons. Can we find as effective a counter for the laws our liberals make to keep us disarmed and "easy pickins" for criminals (some of whom even wear badges)? (Common Sense)

Guns in Church?

Two people are dead as a result of a man coming into the St. Thomas Syrian Orthodox Knanaya Church. In New Jersey, where guns are not allowed, and killing his estranged wife and a parishioner. In Colorado Springs, a man came in and started killing people in a church protected by a part-time security guard who was also a parishioner, who shot him, stopping his rampage. In a Scientology Church, a man came in with a sword and tried to kill some people, but was shot to death by a security guard. Anti-gun freaks say there should not be guns in church. But how many people have been killed in churches by people who don't obey rules, nor laws? I think concealed guns should be allowed EVERYWHERE, so people can defend themselves against such people. The "anti=gun freaks" say that will make America a "wild-west" society where people "settle scores" with guns at the slightest provocation. What a LOAD! Back when everybody DID carry a gun, gunfights were rare, and it was a "polite society." Today, when people carrying guns are rare, we have more shootings per square inch than ever before because people who want to shoot someone don't care about how many laws they break while the people they want to shoot, do. What makes politicians think a CRIMINAL, who does not OBEY laws, will obey one that says he can't be armed, I don't know. Only honest people do, and we don't have to worry about them. (Associated Press)

More Guns Needed

In New Zealand, "dairies" (their equivalent of a convenience store") are arming themselves because of a recent increase of violent crimes against them. They call the job of clerk in their stores as "one of the most dangerous jobs out there." Some keep baseball bats, cricket bats, knives and other weapons short of a gun because of the tight gun laws that do nothing toward keeping guns out of the hands of criminals (who don't obey laws) but DO keep guns out of the hands of most honest people--those who really NEED them. But some are actually putting guns under their counters in defiance of the law because "it's better to be judged by 12 instead of carried by six." I agree. If I had such a job, I would DEFINITELY have a gun close to hand, law or no law. (New Zealand Herald)

School Shooting in Finland

"KAUHAJOKI, Finland - A masked gunman whose violent YouTube postings prompted police to question him a day ago opened fire Tuesday at his trade school in western Finland, killing ten people before shooting himself in the head." Who was it that said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?" After this shooting, Finnish "authorities" say they need MORE gun control. They already have some of the most restrictive "gun control laws" in the world. How is making more going to stop this kind of thing? Especially since the gun this guy used was LICENSED and had to be left in his home after they questioned him yesterday following some "disturbing" YouTube postings he made? Last November, a gunman killed eight people in a school, igniting a lot of talk about "gun control," though the law didn't get changed significantly. This is yet more evidence that customary "gun control laws" do NOT work. Again I say: if there had been ONE person in that school with a legal gun and the will to use it (maybe that janitor), maybe the death toll would be smaller, as it was in the church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colorado, where a female part-time security guard (actually, a parishioner attending the church, but who had been asked to bring her gun) with a licensed gun shot the shooter, stopping his "killing spree. But who is listening? Nobody, apparently. (Yahoo News)