Gun Control is Criminal Protection

Update: Why is it that people can't understand reasonable concepts? What I am talking about are the shootings at "Gun Free Zones", most recently Virginia Tech. For some reason these irrational people think that banning firearms is going to make people safer, but the reality is that it is quite the opposite. Criminals don't follow the law. Someone who is planning to commit murder does not really care about other violations in the law, such as not bringing a firearm onto a campus.

The reality is that by preventing people from being able to protect themselves, these anti-firearms people are making such events far worse. While I don't think that a place should be reasonable for the criminal acts of a person, I do think that a place SHOULD be responsible when they create rules and regulations which prevent a person from being able to protect themselves and others due to those rules and regulations. The problem is that people don't want to be responsible for their actions. It is quite clear to me that when you place restrictions on the law abiding, that the criminals will use that to make their jobs easier and cause more harm to innocent victims.

Just think how many lives could have been saved if just one person had the ability to stop the criminal killer in an effective manner. Remember, the police carry firearms because that is the most effective tool to deal with dangerous situations. It is just one tool possible, but it is an important one.

I have talked to many anti-gun people and it surprises me, well, not really, that none of them would be willing to do like many of the supporters of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms do and put a sign in front of their house stating their views, in their case saying that it is a gun free zone. It is hard to get them to admit the reason for this and that is because they know that if they did the criminals would know that they would have a harder time defending themselves and so they would be an easier target. It seems that they don't think that telling criminals that they will not find any firearms in the house is enough to get the criminal to go looking for a place that has firearms.

It would be an interesting experiment to disarm all the law abiding citizens and see what happens to the crime rate and to also allow law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons and see what effect that has on the crime rate. Hmmm, it seems like that has been done already though, but we can't learn from those lessons for some reason. Washington, D.C. and New York City have banned law abiding from having handguns and the crime rates there are some of the highest. Criminals don't have as much to worry about when attacking law abiding citizens because if they have a gun, they are also a criminal and won't tend to report them since they would risk their freedom and if they don't have a gun then they are an easier target. On the other hand, Florida made it possible for a law abiding citizen to carry a concealed weapon. The anti-gun types were claiming that if the law passed there would be gun fights on every street corner, yet that has not happened. I also hear that the crime rate dropped once the law was passed even though there had not been time for the citizens to get the permits. I guess the criminals did not want to take a chance. What they did instead was to start attacking tourists since they knew that those people would not be armed. That worked until the law was changed to allow non-residents to be able to get the permits.

It also seems that the rich and famous would also like to disarm the public. Perhaps it is because they know they are more of a target for criminals unless they can make someone else a better target. The way to do that is to disarm all those who can not afford to pay for armed security guards, which is most of the public. Those rich and famous people would not be willing to give up their armed security guards, they want you to give up your right to defend yourself instead.

It is interesting that places like the "Brady Center" dedicated to creating a country free from gun violence. While this is a nice statement, I think you need to read it very closely. They only want to reduce what they call gun violence, it seems that they don't care if the criminal uses a knife or other objects. They also seem to consider that if you use a firearm in self defense, that is gun violence, so they want to stop that too. It is clear that they are not making any distinction between legal and justified uses of firearms and those by criminals. In doing this, they are are preventing the law abiding from defending themselves and are actually protecting the criminals from harm by their innocent victims.

Both the Brady Center and Handgun Control want to abuse the laws of this country and try to attack innocent people. On their web site: "The National Rifle Association and other extremists in the gun lobby are once again gearing up to deprive gun violence victims of their legal rights." This is deceptive at best and in my opinion is an outright lie since no one is attempting to deprive any victims of gun violence of their legal rights. What such groups are trying to do is abuse the court system to attack legal businesses. The victims are free to take action against the actual cause of the violence, but not against everyone on the planet. A similar example would be allowing the victim of a drunk driver to sue the maker of the vehicle, the maker of the alcohol that the person consumed, the store or bar that the person bought the alcohol from, the distributor of the alcohol, etc. Perhaps a closer example would be to allow a person to sue a automobile dealership because they sold a vehicle to a person with a driver's license, but who had a bad driving record and that person caused death and/or injury by violating the law in how the vehicle was operated. Just as a automobile dealership does not have access to the driving record of a person, the firearms dealer does not have access to the criminal record of a person, but instead uses the services of the government to find out if the person is allowed to own a firearm. If the government says the person is not prohibited from owning a firearm, what right does the firearms dealer to refuse to sell a firearm to the person? I am sure that the firearms dealer would be sued if they refused to sell a person a firearm when the government said that it was ok.

Firearms dealer are strickly regulated and there are numerous laws. Part of the problem is that the government often chooses to not enforce the law, including cases of allowing a person to plea bargain, which can reduce the crime to the point where they would not be restricted from buying a firearm. In the case of the Stockton School shooting, had the government not allowed the criminal to plea to reduced charges numerous times, he would have been prevented from legally buying a firearm. If you want something to take action on, take a look at all the firearms laws and look to see how often the government chooses to enforce them. A prime example of this was Janet Reno who refused to prosecute people who attempted to buy a firearm when they were prohibited, it part it seems because the one year sentence was not worth the effort of bringing charges. The person in charge of enforcing the laws of the country chose to not enforce the law!!!

If you want some interesting reading, investigate the reason that the Founding Fathers put the 2^nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights. It might not be what you expect. Many never thought that the right to keep and bear arms would ever be infringed and therefore it was not needed to be written down (remember, the Bill of Rights gives you no rights, it is to prevent the government from infringing your natural rights). It was not put there to protect your right to hunt or even self protection, it was put there for a far more serious reason. Check it out and learn what they were trying to protect.

I recently watched the movie, or should I say propaganda, "Runaway Jury". It seems that the Entertainment Industry feels that they can use what they produce to pursue their beliefs and goals, while ignoring reality and responsibility. The producers of this movie decided to paint the entire gun industry as greedy, selfish people who don't care about the public and just chant the mantra of the Second Amendment, while at the same time ignoring all the laws that cover the firearms industry, ignore the government regulations, ignore that generally firearms go through distributors and do not come directly from the manufacturer. Instead of looking at reality, which is often ignored in movies, but typically does not involve a personal attack, the Entertainment Industry is trying to present the world in which they want to see, without realizing what such a world would really be like. The Liberals want to hold firearms makers responsible for all the actions of anyone who comes in contact with one of their firearms, yet they don't want to do the same for parents of children who become gang members, killers and assorted criminals. They don't want the makers of automobiles to be responsible, nor the makers of alcohol for all the deaths and injuries caused by their products. Of course they also don't want to pay the firearms industry for all the lives saved and all the innocent victims who were able to defend themselves against criminals.

These people are also quick to call the people, a hired gun, to come and protect them, but they are also quick to blame the police when things do go 100% correctly. If theses Liberals got their way, most of the firearms industry would cease to exist and then where would the hired guns get their firearms to protect these Liberals?

I have to wonder why these people can not place the blame on the person who commits the criminal act, rather than everyone else. Perhaps because they don't want to be held responsible for their own actions. In the case of firearms, the government approves each tranaction that goes through a firearms dealer, so why is it that the government is not responsible since they have all the criminal records, the government is willing to plea bargin criminals charges, which allow these criminal to get away with their crimes. Perhaps because there is no money in that.

The bottom line is that the police can never be everywhere and can never protect every individual and can not be held responsible if they don't (numerous court cases, including a recent "Supreme" Court case show this). These people also don't want to be held responsible when due to their actions of banning firearms, people are harmed or killed when they can not protect themselves from criminals.

Perhaps it is time to use their own actions against them and sue them for all the increases harm they cause by preventing law abiding citizens from defending themselves. Perhaps it is time for people to speak up and complain about all of the propaganda which is being directed at us by the Entertainment Industry.