Ensure your implementation is successful:

Plan carefully!

Both Democrats and Republicans support reducing violent crime, but disagree about the means. Democrats believe the misleading fiction that LESS defensive guns in law-abiding hands protect responsible people from young, strong violent criminals all

. Republicans prefer to look at the empirical evidence which proves that MORE guns in law-abiding hands discourage violent criminals from attack.

1. Avoid problems from the believers of anti-gun rhetoric

The truth about discouraging violent criminals is very inconvenient for gun control advocates and politicians whose guards all carry guns. Yet if their incessant mantra that guns increase violent crime were true, why do any of them have armed guards? The complete rebuttal to their mendacious hatchet job is here.

What needs to be done before the general public hears about your plans to reduce violent crime and rape by discouraging violent criminals? Educate your citizens with the facts:

Indirectly encouraging concealed carry immediately chopped rape and violent crime by 48% while in the similar environment without concealed carry, both rape and violent crime increased.
When citizens were directly encouraged to be able to protect themselves, their families and their property, violent crime plummeted by 74%
Long-term, the decline in rape and violent crime continued for both indirect and direct discouragement of violent criminals.

Make sure you are ready to educate your citizens with the benefits of reducing rape and violent crime before they hear about your plans from the biased media - our niche

.

Those who believe the anti-gun rhetoric unthinkingly

may be rather negative, as in the City of Nelson, yet problems are avoidable, even negative publicity is helpful, and the crime reductions speak for themselves...

2. Once you're prepared, even negativity is valuable

How does media negativity about encouraging armed self-defense affect a person or a company when relocating? Even negative publicity is beneficial! For anyone investigating with an open mind, armed citizens are a big positive since the FBI report that more guns result in less crime

.

Morton Grove's total gun ban received enormous media approval although it increased their crime rate and their population decreased. In response, Kennesaw encouraged their responsible citizens to be armed to protect their families - and got universal condemnation.

What happened to Kennesaw's economic growth? The strident negativity immediately slashed their violent crime by 74% and skyrocketed their economy. Strong evidence that media negativity is beneficial, it informed their criminals the city was unsafe for violent crime and shows both businesses and people choose very low crime when relocating.

If you believe that gun-free zones can be a good idea, then how does preventing law-abiding citizens from defending themselves and their families decrease crime? How do you trace from start to finish, step by step, the causal path from the gun ban to the decrease in violent crime that you believe it gives you?

3. Implementation Pitfalls to Avoid

The City of Nelson, Georgia gained significant media negativity and opposition when they encouraged their law-abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves, their family and their property from violent criminals, rapists, and terrorists.

Their woefully inadequate attempts to inform their citizens about the benefits of being able to protect their families resulted in demonstrations in the streets and much media negativity. The expensive lawsuit brought by the Brady Campaign was settled when the city confirmed that each resident has a full and inviolable right to self-determination.

The irony is that the Brady Campaign's lawsuit opposed an individual's right to armed self-defense yet the settlement simply emphasized that very same right to self-determination. Those who don't understand defensive gun uses

don't appreciate the value of a gun for protecting their loved ones. So make sure your people are properly informed - our niche

4. Beware!

Beware. Until you have a viable strategy along with a plan to deal with all the negativity, keep your internal discussions completely private for now. Ensure you're properly prepared if gun-controllers create a media onslaught - despite their fine words, they really want your responsible citizens totally disarmed and defenseless.

The towns of Byron ME and Craig CO failed when some of their residents objected. You need your responsible citizens to support reducing your violent crime - our niche is to ensure that all your citizens are fully informed

about its many benefits...

Provided you're well prepared, media negativity is valuable - it lets your citizens and businesses know you're doing everything you can to decrease crime. More importantly, it lets your few violent criminals know that all your citizens - their prey - are armed and they're liable to be shot and injured in a violent attack.

5. Public support along with publicity ensures success

With the pervasive media misinformation on gun control, you need to maximize public support to encourage your people to be able to defend themselves. Knowing their prey are likely armed and can shoot back deters violent criminals.

But do businesses and people really like safety? Comparing the population decline in Chicago with very strong gun controls to the growth in Houston with lax Texas gun laws, the answer is clearly an emphatic yes! Yet the biased liberal media applaud gun control while ignoring Chicago's IMMENSE crime problem.

You want all your citizens to support you in Discouraging your Criminals. They need to know why and how encouraging concealed carry improves their safety, reduces violent crime, and can save their life - our niche!

6. Is it legal?

What if an individual gets hurt as a result of the increase in gun ownership? Is anyone but the perpetrator responsible? NO! This question was decided in a 54-page decision comprehensively dismissing the fanciful lawsuit claiming anyone even remotely involved was liable for the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre. But in this interdependent world, everyone and everything is connected in some way to everything else...

What if an injury can be connected in some way to a city's sound advice for their citizens to be armed and able to defend themselves? Is the city liable? Cities give all sorts of sound advice on safety, personal security, and preventing assault with, for example, the Rape Aggression Defense course. But the city is not responsible for a perp's injuries from an unarmed victim. How can encouraging self-defense for the weak and elderly be any different to any other sound crime-prevention advice?

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) protects gun manufacturers and dealers for gun misuse injuries, but not for armed self-defense because those directly involved are not liable and have no need of its protection. Since those directly involved are not liable, those more remotely involved are therefore also not liable.

Of course, since the Federal Courts found that directly discouraging criminals - Kennesaw's ordinance specifying all citizens who don't object must be armed - is entirely legal and no problem, the idea that indirectly discouraging criminals might be illegal or even a problem makes little or no sense.

In Printz v US, SCOTUS ruled that no duty can be imposed on the chief law enforcement officer ("the chief of police, the sheriff") to uphold any gun control measure.

No matter how much officials such as the feds pretend that they are the top legal authority in the country, SCOTUS disagrees. The Supreme Court says your Sheriff is the ultimate law-enforcement authority in your county. See more 1 here, 2 here, 3 here, 4 here, 5 here, 6 here, 7 here, 8 here, 9 here, and 10 here

...

Everything your community requires for a qualified responsible citizen to have a concealed carry permit is still required. They still need to qualify, and they still need to be trained and meet your local requirements for a license.

Food for Thought

Let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one Jesus (Luke 22 36)

"With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option. You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back; but are you prepared?

"Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there. You have a duty to protect yourself and your family."

– Sheriff David Clarke, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

http://www.prisonplanet.com/sheriff-warns-of-second-american-revolution-if-gun-grabbers-get-their-way.html

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas not only agreed with the judgment in McDonald v. Chicago (2010) that the right to keep and bear arms is applicable to state and local governments, he went even further in finding that an individual's right to bear arms is a fundamental privilege of American citizenship.

His finding in McDonald draws from a long and uninterrupted line of civil rights activists who preached the virtues of armed self-defense:

The great abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass, for instance, who famously urged President Abraham Lincoln to arm the liberated slaves against their former masters, was an outspoken champion of gun rights.

Founder of the pioneering Regional Council of Negro Leadership and a longtime ally of the NAACP, Mississippi doctor T.R.M. Howard saw no reason to separate the struggle for racial equality from the case for armed self-defense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas#Second_Amendment

Civil Rights and your Right to Armed Self-Defense, Justice Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion in McDonald v. Chicago.

DC37 implementation page87