Victim Disarmament and VA Tech
The recent shooting spree at Virginia Tech once again shines the spotlight of truth on the lies or at least misguided rhetoric of the gun ban crowd. Places of guaranteed disarmament are a playground for those who want to kill lots of people.
------------
From an email alert released by the JPFO (http://www.jpfo.org/)
Virginia law states that holders of concealed carry permits are allowed to carry on university campuses.
(http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/80510 )
In the name of "safety", certain persons lobbied successfully to prevent the carrying of firearms on Virginia Tech's campus. Yesterday's massacre was the direct result of that lobbying.
Did the rules forbidding the carrying of firearms prevent Seung Hui Cho's senseless slaughter? Obviously not. In fact, the rules encouraged his rampage because law-abiding citizens were unable to prevent Cho from completing his butchery.
The blood of those 32 innocents is on the hands of those who lobbied for victim disarmament, and on the hands of the president of the university who acquiesced to their short-sighted demands.
------------
It brings to mind the term “victim disarmament”
That’s all the gun ban crowd creates. Criminals don’t care about the law. The police will NOT be there to protect you. If you believe that they will you are only kidding yourself. Look at the pictures from Columbine and VA Tech. Look at the officers hiding behind patrol car doors while people are gunned down inside the buildings.
Go review the court cases ruling that there is no obligation for the police to protect you. But better yet, why would you sit around waiting and expecting someone else to protect you?
I do not expect to be protected. I do not expect someone else to protect my family. That is my responsibility and my family’s responsibility.
Arming you and other law abiding citizens does reduce crime. Banning guns does not. If you have any illusions about it, go do some research. Look at the results in the UK and Australia. You need do no more research than a quick Google and read on the outcomes of their bans and restrictions and the increase of violent crime.
------------
From, Multiple Victim Public Shootings, by John Lott
http://www.thevrwc.org/JohnLott.pdf
Law-abiding citizens have also used guns to stop gun-toting attackers at schools, restaurants, offices, and stores.7
7One puzzle is why the media rarely reports the role of guns in ending attacks. Consider the shooting spree at a high school in Pearl, Miss. in 1997 that left two students dead. An assistant principal stopped the attack by retrieving his handgun from his car and physically immobilized the shooter for over five minutes before police arrived. A Lexis-Nexis search indicates that 687 articles appeared the first month after the attack but only 19 stories mentioned the
assistant principal and only 10 mentioned that he used a gun to stop the attack. Some stories simply stated that the assistant principal was “credited by police with helping capture the boy'' or that he had disarmed the shooter. No story that mentioned the assistant principal’s role was aired on the national evening news. A story on CBS with Dan Rather, which ran more than a month later, noted that the assistant principal “eventually subdued the young gunman.”
But these stories provided no explanation how of he had accomplished this feat.
In another, school-related shooting in Edinboro, Pa., which left one teacher dead, the owner of a nearby restaurant, pointed a shotgun at the shooter as he was reloading his gun. The police did not arrive until 11 minutes later. Nearly 600 news stories discussed this crime during the next month, yet only 35 mentioned the restaurant owner’s role. Moreover, these stories did not mention that a shotgun was used to stop the crime. The New York Daily News, for example, explained that the restaurant owner “persuaded [the killer] to surrender,” while The Atlanta Journal wrote how he “chased [the killer] down and held him until police came.”
------------
You can add to that the fact that guns are the only things that have maintained our relative safety and liberty since 1776. I can assure you with disarmed population slavery will follow. Without the protections of the First and Second Amendment, none of the rest of the Bill of Rights is possible.
Take the time.
Read http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html
You’ll be glad you did.
Comments