The Second Amendment: Because criminals and psycho killer don’t obey NO GUNS ALLOWED rules, only law-abiding citizens (aka victims) do.
Which Would Best Protect Your Daughter’s Health?:
By Chuck Assay:
Via Moonbattery:
From here via Ann Coulter’s links:
Via Moonbattery:
http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/ – A collection of new stories where gun-carrying civilians stop criminals dead in their tracks (pun intended).
More guns, less crime in 2009.
Even MSNDC has to admit it:
Via Moonbattery:
I am liking this statement from Moonbattery:
Recall also Rape Deterrence:
And also Gun Wielding Maniac Attack: Conservative vs Liberal Result and Mumbai Terrorist Attacks – An Argument for Citizen Concealed-Carry of Personal Firearms? and Jewish Ghettos and the Holocaust: An Argument for the Second Ammendment.
PS. See also this pic.
From Scott Wieser via Big Head Press:
So would the knowledge that any number of civilians might be carrying concealed guns and be trained to shoot deter potential attackers?
John R. Lott at FOX Forum seems to think so:
————————-
The Life-and-Death Cost of Gun Control
Banning guns is in the news. India practically bans guns, but that didn’t stop the horrific Muslim terrorist attacks this last week.
Given that the terrorists smuggled their machine guns in with them, would anyone argue that India’s extremely strict gun licensing and artificially high prices for guns helped prevent the terrorist attacks? In fact, the reverse is more likely the case.
In India, victims watched as armed police cowered and didn’t fire back at the terrorists. A photographer at the scene described his frustration: “There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything. At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, ‘Shoot them, they’re sitting ducks!’ but they just didn’t shoot back.”
Meanwhile, according to the hotel company’s chairman, P.R.S. Oberoi, security at “the hotel had metal detectors, but none of its security personnel carried weapons because of the difficulties in obtaining gun permits from the Indian government.”
India has extremely strict gun control laws, but who did it succeed in disarming?
The terrorist attack showed how difficult it is to disarm serious terrorists. Strict licensing rules meant that it was the victims who obeyed the regulations, not the terrorists.
The attack also illustrates what Israelis learned decades ago. — Putting more soldiers or police on the street didn’t stop terrorist’s machine gun attacks. Terrorists would either wait for the armed soldiers or police to leave the area or kill them first. Likewise, in India, the Muslim terrorists’ first targets were those in uniform (whether police or security guards).
Terrorists only stopped using machine guns to attack Israelis once citizens were allowed to carry concealed handguns. In large public gatherings, a significant number of citizens will be able to shoot at terrorists during an attack — and the terrorists don’t know who has them.
With mass shootings becoming more difficult, terrorists were forced to switch to a less effective strategy: bombs. Bombings are more difficult for armed citizens to stop because they can’t respond after the bomb blows up.
Still, even though handguns can only kill would-be bombers before they set off their bombs, during waves of terror attacks, Israel’s national police chief will call on all citizens who are allowed to carry guns to make sure they carry their firearms at all times, and Israelis have many examples where citizens with concealed handguns have saved lives.
——————————-
Indian businesses are demanding gun rights:
Bangalore: The war on Mumbai has left the India Inc angry and vulnerable sectors want much more than a constable with a lathi.
“We’re losing faith in the political leadership of this country. There’s no doubt about that,” T V Mohandas Pai, director (HR), Infosys, adding, “To take care of the political class, they have Z-plus security. They have arms. What about us? Isn’t our life important? We’re citizens. The government is unable to protect us, then amend the law. Let us bear arms, we’ll protect ourselves to whatever extent we can”.
A worried Bangalore Inc said they’d rather have machine guns than be sitting ducks to a torrent of bullets.
While government installations have forces who can combat an emergency, the private sector has to make do with metal detectors, frisking and CCTV security.
The latest addition are sniffer dogs, which some organizations have opted for, but nothing that can combat an AK-47.
“We’ll not be in a position to answer these kinds of AK-47s and grenades. We need much stronger help from the government. And we’ll need military intervention. May be we could start some military patrolling at least, then there can be confidence that help can come at short notice,” chairman and MD, Biocon, Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw.
——————————-
See also my post on the Mumbai massacres and the morons who defend or close their eyes to the perpetrators.
See also earlier posts on gun ownership and gun control:
For the record, I was anti-guns until around the time that I learnt – up close and personal – more about what a selfish, apathetic and evil world it is out there.
Here’s hoping, terrorist scumbags!
Chuck Norris has plenty of ironies to fling back in the faces of ‘progressive’ liberal Moonbats after the Northern Illinois University shooting.
(Which btw, was yet another gun free zone where only maniacs who DON’T obey the no-guns rules have weapons, while law-abiding victims are defenceless.)
UPDATE 22 FEB 08: The maniacal shooter’s inspiration and motivation revealed???
——————————————-
From Townhall.com:
[Mike Huckabee] points to modern day factors that contribute to a culture of killing.
Among them are a devaluing and disregard for human life; a greater parental disconnection from and immoral license with their children; the legislation of subversive morality; an abandonment of a fellowship and moral center of community like a church; and a complete disregard for moral absolutes.
We teach our children they are nothing more than glorified apes, yet we don’t expect them to act like monkeys.
We terminate children in the womb, but are surprised when children outside the womb terminate other children.
We’ve abandoned moral absolutes, yet expect our children to obey the universal commandment: “Thou shall not murder.”
As James Madison once wrote, “Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty, as well as by the abuses of power.”
And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
Do we now believe we can consider morality and religion optional, without suffering civil and societal repercussions, despite the warning of our Founding Fathers, such as John Adams, “Our Constitution was made for only a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”?
————————————-
Related to my posts on anti-discipline schooling, moral absolutes/relativity, and how gun ownership prevents (not aids) school shootings:
The Star: Empower Teachers to Discipline Students
Scott’s Letter on Caning Gets Responses (Tarshini intends that we head down the progressive-liberal-pander-to-undisciplined-students path that leads to school shootings)
Gun Wielding Maniac Attack: Conservative vs Liberal Result
On Gun Controls: Five Scenarios
A Simple Example of Relative Morality
Fascism and Bestiality – Atheists Please Tell Me Why I Am Morally Wrong
Communism = Atheism = Relative Morality
Learned of via Moonbattery, reposted from original at Hog on Ice:
————————–
I Choose New Life
I can’t resist making this comparison.
SCENARIO ONE: ASSAULT ON A CHURCH FULL OF BACKWARD CONSERVATIVES
There is a church. Lots of people are inside. They believe Jesus is the living Son of God and part of the Holy Trinity. A person who can’t be reasoned with shows up to kill as many as possible. He has already killed two people at another church. He kills two girls in the parking lot, but when he gets inside, a private citizen with a carry permit shoots him over and over, and he gives up and shoots himself.
“Vigilante” death tally: 2
SCENARIO TWO: ASSAULT ON A CHURCH FULL OF PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS
There is a church. Lots of people are inside. They believe Jesus is a dead and possibly fictional homosexual who was misguided but nearly as nice as Buddha. A person who can’t be reasoned with shows up to kill as many as possible. He has already killed two smug androgynous salespeople at a nearby Apple Store. He kills two girls in the parking lot. When he gets inside, the congregation notices that he’s shooting people, and they get angry at George Bush for whatever he and Halliburton did to turn this boy into a killer. A few quick-thinking souls rush forward to give him hugs, but he drops them in the aisles. There are no guns on the property except his, so he shoots until he runs out of bullets or the cops show up. Oops, the cops take ten minutes, or 600 seconds. By that time, he has fired several hundred rounds at a fairly relaxed pace, and nearly everyone in the place is dead or wounded. The cops arrive to find him dead.
Progressive death tally: dozens
Which church would you rather be in when the nut shows up?
It’s a damn good thing Jeanne Assam wasn’t at Virginia Tech. She might have hindered the campus police by killing Seung-Hui Cho before he managed to murder 33 people. This could have created a lot of annoying paperwork and might have been a dangerous setback to the gun control movement.
Oh, yeah. Taking away guns and relying on the cops did a world of good at Virgina Tech. If only the unwashed savages at the New Life Church were as enlightened as the academics who banned guns on the Virginia Tech campus. They, too, could have known the joy of giving their lives so others could enjoy the privilege of living in a gun-free zone.
I’m sorry. I shouldn’t be flippant. But how do people get this goddamn stupid?
———————-
If the government passes a law banning all firearms, only the lawbreakers will have guns.
For your reference:
New Life Church: Matthew Murray had recently murdered staff at a Youth With A Mission (YWAM) office. He was carrying two handguns, an assault rifle and over 1,000 rounds of ammunition when he shot and killed two teenage girls outside the New Life Church. As he entered the church building, volunteer security guard Jeanne Assam confronted him and opened fire with her handgun, diasbling him. He then committed suicide by shooting himself in the head. More at Malkin, Wikipedia.
Virginia Tech: Seung-Hui Cho was armed with two handguns when he went on a killing spree at the Virginia Tech school. No one was armed with a personal firearm to confront and stop him. By the time police arrived, Cho had already shot and killed 32 students and teachers before shooting himself in the head while the police took 5 minutes to break through the locks into the building. More at Wikipedia and Malkin.
See also my post on whether civilians armed with hidden guns make things safer or worse, with more examples of privately owned guns stopping mass murderers, at On Gun Controls: Five Scenarios.
And see this very intelligent post that argues how guns are an equalizer that deters, not encourages, the use of violent force to solve disputes, at Munchkin Wrangler.
Excerpt below:
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
From Red Planet Cartoons:
From Scott Wieser via Big Head Press:
From Chuck Assay:
From Gary McCoy:
Cumulative visitors since 8:59 pm, 16th April 2011:
THE SCOTTTCAST 
