Facts have been presented showing that there is an amazing amount of truth in what the pro-Second Amendment movement has been saying in regards to gun-free zones in the Land of the Free. Everyone smarter than a post, or at least than Joe Biden, knew that gun-free zones were havens for those who wish to inflict the maximum amount of misery with no one shooting back at them. And guess what? We were all correct.
Ninety-eight percent–that is how much more often a mass shooting happens in a gun-free zone than in areas where people are allowed to protect themselves as they see fit. This study did not include gang violence, which not only is not motivated by the same outcome as mass shootings or acts of terror, but are usually targeted. Gangs often use illegal guns too, so for those two reasons, gangs do not equate into the number.
This information should be shown to everyone who has been trying so hard to make (what is now proven to be) targets out of everyone by removing guns from the public at every opportunity. This is why we are seeing states such as Florida move to allow guns in government buildings and airports.
After the truth was seen that taking guns away from travelers in Florida lead to a mass killing of them as they died defenseless at the airport, this may prove to be one of the most prudent moves that we have seen in terms of public safety and defense in years.
Kentucky, home of Senator Rand Paul, is looking at changing the rules to allow guns in schools there, which will go a long way in limiting the amount of damage that a shooter will do, if God forbid that should ever arise. There are very good reasons why the Second Amendment exists, and much of it has nothing to do with hunting or taking over the government, which is always heard.
The Second Amendment means that a small, frail person can walk down the street and not have to be unprotected nor open for attack. This is the basis of protecting one’s God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Flash mobs exist that see homes and stores overrun with tens, sometimes hundreds of looters, so people may feel the need to have more than ten bullets in a gun in order to be safe. That is the person’s right to do so, just as it is the right of a woman who gets off from work at three in the morning to greet any possible attacker with something more than pepper spray and a rape whistle.
By the way, someone let the left know that rape whistles don’t work so well in the age of central air, closed doors, and surround sound systems. They will never figure it out if we don’t tell them.
Let us imagine that a handful of responsible gun owners had a gun on hand during the most recent shooting at the Florida airport. Without a doubt, someone was likely going to lose their lives that day no matter what because, unlike what the media says about most gun owners, just because someone has a gun on them does not mean that they are planning to use it.
Any gun owner would have been just as busy checking bags, dodging cell phone walkers, and paying for overpriced coffee as anyone who did not have a gun. Therefore, when the madman opened fire, the shock factor was still going to kill at least someone, if not many “someones”.
However, from there on out, that is where the story would have most likely changed to a very large degree. Once the first victims had fallen and the running began, a responsible conceal and carry gun owner would have been on alert. If he or she had a clear shot, which is unlikely but possible, they would have taken it. Contrary to popular belief, gun classes do not teach to ever fire if the shot is not clear, such as would have been the case with the initial panicked running. Still, once people started hitting the ground in an effort to not be a target, things would have changed.
The gunman was reported to have stood over those who cowered on the ground as a defense and simply fired his weapon into the sea of bodies while looming over them. This means that there was quite likely a clear shot once this happened. If so, at least some of those that died on the floor could have been saved. Second of all, if one or two of the people on the ground had a gun (assuming that they had ducked or were playing dead), they could have really had a fighting chance.
If this sounds like a bit too much of a “wild west scenario” for many to be comfortable with, are we more comfortable with a “horror movie scenario”? Gunmen who want to kill people have a terrible track record when it comes to obeying gun laws, so this approach is clearly not working. If it did work, then we would not see a 98% higher number of these crimes in places where no one except the law breaker can kill someone. There is no reason why we can not trust the vast majority of our fellow citizens to have a gun when we already know that the vast minority of us (killers) will certainly not be worthy of the trust to pull back.
It was Robert Heilein who said most astutely that an armed society is a polite society, and there are jewels of logic to be mined within those words. If guns are taken away from the people, then in areas where criminals plan, life becomes the survival of the fittest. When guns were taken by China, Russia, and Germany, it lead directly to the worst genocides of the 20th century.
It is time to understand that instead of banning guns, we need to be teaching the value and respect FOR guns. Our very lives may depend upon it someday.