Anti-gun nuts ignore the evidence

April 16 is the anniversary of the Virginia Tech massacre. We are certain to hear about the need to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys. Of course, that means more gun control. Schools are generally gun free zones by law. There are exceptions, the biggest being all of Utah's state-run universities. No school shootings have occurred in that state. But the multiple killings that have occurred at various schools around the country have all taken place in areas which have been legally rendered as gun free zones.

Those who do not believe in self defense think that safety will come by making it even harder for people to get guns. They warn us that if we loosen up on these gun free zones and allow students and staff who have carry permits to transport a handgun on their person ... that it will only lead to bystanders being hurt or killed. But how do they know that?

The answer is, they don't. They have zero examples of armed defenders harming (let alone killing) innocent bystanders while stopping multiple killers. In fact, in spite of gun free laws, we have three cases where defenders left their campus, ran to their vehicles, got their guns and returned to stop the shooters. They never even had to fire. It was enough for the killers to see that they had lost control of their murder-suicide scheme to give up. This is typical of approximately 97 percent of the 2,500,000 cases of armed self defense in America each year. In only three percent of the cases is a gun fired, and that does not mean that the perpetrator is even wounded, let alone killed. So, we have a massive amount of data to show that armed Americans are amazingly self-controlled, even in the face of danger. They are obviously not carrying their guns so they can find a pretext to shoot somebody.

Let's look at a recent example of armed self defense where shots were fired. A very well-armed murderer shot and killed two sisters in the parking lot of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado. He then entered the building where he was engaged by some of the twenty church members who had volunteered for the security team. When Jeanne Assam told the shooter to drop his gun, he swung around, firing in an attempt to shoot her. She shot him repeatedly until he fell mortally wounded. He then took his own life. No innocent bystanders were killed inside the New Life Church, and none were shot by the security team.

A similar outcome occurred in Jerusalem at a yeshiva, a Hebrew seminary. A Muslim terrorist spent some 15 minutes gunning down students (ultimately killing eight). When police responded to the scene, they did not enter the building, similar to the police response at Columbine. A part-time student who lives nearby entered the building, and leaning out over a balcony, fired twice, wounding the terrorist in another room. A second part-time student arrived just after that and finished him off. The second defender had grabbed a policeman's hat off one of the onlooking officers. He figured that would keep him from being confused as a terrorist by the first defender. And, as at the New Life Church, the defenders shot no bystanders.

If we are genuinely concerned about defending life and protecting students, which policy has the track record worth emulating? On the one hand we have those advocating gun free zones who have only rivers of blood and piles of bodies to show for their policy. On the other hand, we have those advocating armed self defense who are batting a thousand. We are told that having students or faculty (with concealed handgun permits) carrying guns scares many students and teachers. Maybe so. What is worse ... being scared or being dead?

Source





Disarming parents and law-abiding citizens: No way to win war on gun violence: "Chicago's public school officials have been busing students to Springfield to act as 'grief' machines to advocate passage of stronger gun control measures by the Illinois legislature. Using children as props to score political points is shameless, not to mention pointless, as even some of the students themselves recognize. Chicago has some of the strongest gun ban measures on the books in any city in the United States, yet guns are still on the streets in the hands of gang members and the teenage death toll mounts. This is not unusual -- gun violence is on the rise in cities across the country where stringent gun control laws are in place."


Federal bill aims to honor concealed weapons permits nationwide: A bill introduced into Congress this week would force every state to recognize a concealed-weapons permit issued in another state, a move that would make Utah's permit even more of a prize nationwide. Utah has one of the more easily obtainable permits - an applicant need not even set foot in the state - and the permit is recognized in 32 other states. The Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement Act, dubbed the SAFE Act by supporters, would force the other 17 states to honor the Utah permit or another issued by a carrier's home state. The bill, introduced this week and co-sponsored by Utah GOP Rep. Chris Cannon, includes the caveat that the permit holder would have to abide by the state's laws on where the firearm can't be carried, such as churches or schools. Cannon backs the bill because he says the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to carry and own a weapon and that right doesn't end at the state line. "You no more give up that right leaving Utah than you give up your right to freely exercise your faith," Cannon says. "This legislation is an important effort to help make that clear - as a matter of federal law." As of the end of March, Utah has more than 112,000 valid permits registered, according to the Bureau of Criminal Identification. Of those, about 38,300 have been issued to out-of-state residents.


Nutty Nutter update: "Philadelphia DA Lynne Abraham says the city's newly enacted gun control laws are unenforceable. At a hearing on Tuesday before City Council, Abraham said that in her opinion the laws passed last week are illegal and will be challenged as soon as the first person is charged under the new statutes. And, she added, she thinks any defendant bringing a court challenge to the new laws would be successful. The new laws include a requirement to report lost or stolen guns, and a one-per-person-per month limit on gun purchases. Abraham agrees with state lawmakers that state law pre-empts the city in such matters and prevents any city in Pennsylvania from passing any such laws on its own. When asked point-blank by a city council member if her office would enforce the new city gun control laws, she replied, "Nope." She warned that if police began making arrests under the new laws, the city could face a wholesale wave of civil rights lawsuits in response. In reaction to DA Abraham's remarks before City Council, Mayor Nutter said he hopes to discuss the DA's position further with her, and he hopes that his law department can convince Abraham that the laws are defensible