The Right Response #11
The Evidence shows Responsible Armed Citizens Drastically Reduce the Slaughter -
So Why Disarm the Responsible?
in 2009 where 13 unarmed soldiers were slaughtered, they had no firearms to protect themselves against the well-armed Islamic Fundamentalist terrorist. It seems that politicians don't trust even soldiers to carry guns! But why not? Aren't soldiers professionally trained to carry and use firearms?
The massacre zone at the 2012 Batman movie mass slaughter killed 12 and injured 58 in Aurora, Colorado. The Century 16 theater parent company, Cinemark
, enforced their strict gun-free policy at all their 459 theaters, even if you had a concealed carry permit.
The Virginia Tech campus
where 32 were shot to death in 2007 was also a massacre zone, although major newspaper reports omitted this crucial fact. In 2006, a student with a legal permit was disciplined for carrying his gun at Virginia Tech. School bureaucrats emphasized their school was a strict "gun-free zone."
The Gun Free School Zone Act
passed in 1990 ensured that both Columbine High School as well as Sandy Hook were massacre zones. Despite the state gun carry laws at the time, there was nobody armed at either school to protect the slaughtered children and teachers. Etc, etc, ...1. Yet Armed Civilians Stop the Slaughter
Yet whenever anyone carrying a defensive firearm is already on the scene, many deaths are prevented.
- The armed school principal stopped a massacre at the 1997 shooting spree in Pearl, Miss.
- Another massacre was avoided by an armed bystander at the 2007 Salt Lake City Mall
- The armed volunteer church member thwarted a massacre at the 2007 New Life Church in Colorado Springs
- Two armed students stopped yet another massacre in the 2002 mass shooting at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia
. So were many other potential massacres at the Santa Clara gunshop in 1999, at Arniston in 1991, at Early Texas in July 2012. etc, etc, ...
As Larry Correia, Utah Concealed Weapons instructor, military and law enforcement master trainer
, expert witness for the Utah State Legislature, Title 7 SOT gun store owner, elite firearms expert explains:
"The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5.
The reason is simple: The armed civilians are there when it started."
2. Would more Laws Avoid such Massacres
Would even more stringent gun laws actually do anything to deter a mass shooter? Dan Poore, commenting on elite firearms expert Larry Correia's article , succinctly explains:
, succinctly explains:
"One estimate, based on preliminary reports when the shooting in CT first happened, put the number of law violations, from the shooter first picking up the gun to finally offing himself, at 47 counts.
"And yet, somehow, a hypothetical 48th violation is supposed to dissuade the shooter. "Hey, I'll be violating the law 47 times, including killing myself at the end, but 48 times is just too far, man. Yeah, right…"
3. Responsible Citizens with Guns Stop Mass Shooters
As the diagram shows, FBI evidence proves that violent crimes decrease as States loosen their gun laws. The evidence is unequivocal. Citizens with firearms are extremely effective in averting violent crime and massacres. Many mass shooters with illegally obtained guns are stopped by armed Americans already on the scene .
.Obviously, stricter guns laws mean less guns in responsible hands. They therefore reduce the number of responsible citizens who can stop a spree shooter. So although reducing the numbers of guns around may seem superficially attractive, the evidence is clear: Disarmed citizens are ... err ... disarmed.
The number of guns in private hands has been steadily increasing, along with a decrease in the number of firearms-related murders. In 1993, the rate of such murders was 6.6 per 100,000 people, whereas in 2011 it had more than halved to just 3.2 firearms-related murders per 100,000 people. A very sharp decline. See Gun control offers no cure-all in America
The USA has so many firearms already in circulation that criminals have little problem in illegally obtaining weapons. How would any gun ban, whether "assault weapons" or large magazines, do anything but decrease the number of armed citizens available to stop mass shooters?
The number of guns in private hands has been steadily increasing, along with a decrease in the number of firearms-related murders. In 1993, the rate of such murders was 6.6 per 100,000 people, whereas in 2011 it had more than halved to just 3.2 firearms-related murders per 100,000 people. A very sharp decline. See Gun control offers no cure-all in America
The USA has so many firearms already in circulation that criminals have little problem in illegally obtaining weapons. How would any gun ban, whether "assault weapons" or large magazines, do anything but decrease the number of armed citizens available to stop mass shooters?
4. We need to Stop the Slaughter
As President Obama himself said: When is enough going to be seen as enough? We need to stop [the slaughter]. Indeed! But his supposed remedy makes absolutely no sense - disarming responsible citizens will instead exacerbate the problem. With more guns in law-abiding hands, there'll be more responsible people already on site to stop spree-shooters in their tracks.
To stop the slaughter, as Obama says he wants, the evidence proves that America needs to decrease gun bans, laws, and restrictions reducing firearms in law-abiding hands. Ensuring more responsible citizens are armed increases the chances that criminals and the mentally disturbed will be stopped in a shooting spree. What aren't we being told? Why are all the Democratic politicians trying to exacerbate the slaughter?
To stop the slaughter, as Obama says he wants, the evidence proves that America needs to decrease gun bans, laws, and restrictions reducing firearms in law-abiding hands. Ensuring more responsible citizens are armed increases the chances that criminals and the mentally disturbed will be stopped in a shooting spree. What aren't we being told? Why are all the Democratic politicians trying to exacerbate the slaughter?
5. If Only They'd been Armed
Dr. Susanna Gratia Hupp explains the cause of her parents' murder in the 1991 Luby's Cafeteria massacre in Texas: her decision to obey the bad law that zealous Democrats were enforcing. It was a felony for a woman to keep her legal hand gun in her purse
.
"[My] incredibly stupid decision to obey a bad law, and allow my family to get killed. And I was mad at my legislature, because ... they had legislated me out of my right to protect myself and my family."
Texas politicians have since altered this "bad law" which stopped her preventing her parent's massacre. Yet how many supporters of such bad laws enjoy armed protection at the expense of you - the taxpayer? Since elected politicians have armed protection, why don't they want you to enjoy the same?6. Mass-Murderers Ignore the Law!
Some argue that laws tightening access will make obtaining guns legally more difficult, which is true, but irrelevant. Tighter gun laws would have made no difference to the Sandy Hook shooter who avoided background checks by stealing the guns. Criminals neither obey the law nor obtain firearms legally.
Democratic Senator Leahy says, "Lives are at risk when responsible people fail to stand up for laws that keep guns out of the hands of those who use them to commit murder." Yet his gun control laws do nothing to solve the problem. Will such hypocrites continue to have armed guards for protection once his laws are passed?
Ninety-one percent of American Law enforcement officials say a federal ban on semi-automatic firearms, "assault weapons" would "either be useless or have a negative impact on fighting crime." The evidence is unequivocal, guns in responsible hands protect you and decrease the slaughter.
Democratic Senator Leahy says, "Lives are at risk when responsible people fail to stand up for laws that keep guns out of the hands of those who use them to commit murder." Yet his gun control laws do nothing to solve the problem. Will such hypocrites continue to have armed guards for protection once his laws are passed?
Ninety-one percent of American Law enforcement officials
say a federal ban on semi-automatic firearms, "assault weapons" would "either be useless or have a negative impact on fighting crime." The evidence is unequivocal, guns in responsible hands protect you and decrease the slaughter.Food for Thought
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong."
- Dr. Thomas Sowell, African-American economist , University Professor, syndicated columnist, prolific academic author.
The original version of this article was published at ezinearticles:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Will-Disarming-Responsible-Citizens-Solve-the-Problem?-Part-11-in-The-Right-Response&id=7627475
** Your Next Step **
- Dramatically improve your family's safety
- Do the police or the government have any legal duty to protect you [The DC Court of Appeals says No! ]
- Convince your neighbors to take responsibility for their own protection
- Slash the crime rate for your whole community
The Right Response? How to reduce violent crime and guarantee your safety!
> There's much more to enjoy about Universal Gun Ownership:
- DOLLAR SAVINGS that encouraging gun ownership brings
- ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT takes off
- Effective implementation strategy and education ensure success in DECREASING VIOLENT CRIME
- RAPE DISAPPEARS at concealed-carry Colorado State University
- REDUCE RACIAL TENSIONS. Improve racial harmony with all your minorities - including responsible blacks
- The BENEFITS available from encouraging gun ownership
- The POLITICAL FUSS needs careful management and a cautious well-thought-out strategy
> The Right to Protect Yourself series of articles:
> The Right Response series of articles
The articles in The Right Response series are:
Addendum refuting 21 common liberal arguments
- The government response?
- Does a gun kill or protect you?
- Mass shootings continue to increase
- Gun control advocates
- Defensive gun uses
- Gun violence
- Instantaneous response
- Armed security or armed teachers?
- Second Amendment
- Does one size fit all? The 10th Amendment
- Why disarm responsible citizens?
- The UN Global Gun Grab
- Stop overworking the police
- Jury nullification
- Safe driving at speed
- How to defend the innocent?
- Who can you trust?
- Who's responsible for your family's safety?
Addendum refuting 21 common liberal arguments
The violent crime reductions benefit everyone when law-abiding, responsible citizens are encouraged to be able to defend their families and themselves from violent criminals, rapists, refugees, and terrorists. When women and seniors are armed, they can defend themselves from attacks by usually young, male and stronger violent criminals.
Of course, there’s no sanction or penalty if you choose not to be able to defend yourself. Despite misrepresentation and media misunderstanding, Discouraging Criminals is neither Mandatory Gun Ownership nor Compulsory Gun Ownership, it's simply your choice.
All our products are fully guaranteed, these time-tested secrets of success are delivered electronically - no waiting for delivery.
Of course, there’s no sanction or penalty if you choose not to be able to defend yourself. Despite misrepresentation and media misunderstanding, Discouraging Criminals is neither Mandatory Gun Ownership nor Compulsory Gun Ownership, it's simply your choice.
All our products are fully guaranteed, these time-tested secrets of success are delivered electronically - no waiting for delivery.
© Copyright worldwide Cris Baker, www.DiscourageCriminals.net. All rights reserved. Republishing welcomed under Creative Commons noncommercial no derivatives license preserving all links intact, so share this widely!
DC107 TRR-11 Disarm responsible citizens page18