A repost, and an emphasized point

Larry CorreiaThere were four mass killing attempts this week. Only one made the news because it helped the agreed upon media narrative.

Oregon. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter confronted by permit holder. Shooter commits suicide. Only a few casualties.
Texas. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter killed immediately by off duty cop. Only a few casualties.
Connecticut. GUN FREE ZONE. Shooters kills until the police arrive. Suicide. 26 dead.
China. GUN FREE COUNTRY. A guy with a KNIFE stabs 22 children.
And here is the nail in the coffin for Gun Free Zones. Over the last fifty years, with only one single exception (Gabby Giffords), every single mass shooting event with more than four casualties has taken place in a place where guns were supposedly not allowed.

Read the whole thing. (Again, if necessary). I wanted to call out a specific point about the above.

Once guns exist in widespread form, gun control policy -- whether having it or not having it -- is self-reinforcing.

People in gun control states see criminals using guns to commit mass murder; they are horrified and sickened and disgusted by guns, and guns in their state are very hard to get due to gun control laws they pass in response, and in order to stop mass murders you need to rely on the police who take 15 minutes to arrive when a mass murder with a gun only needs 3 minutes to kill dozens.

People in gun-rights states do not see mass murders on the same scale because in non-gun-free-zones, people are usually armed and on the scene when the attack starts and can respond in seconds rather than minutes. This limits the causalities and tells the people of that state that they made the right choice and that guns, rather than enabling the attacker to kill dozens, instead enable the potential victims to stop the attacker with relatively few people hurt. When a gun-rights state does have a mass-murder incident with a lot of victims, it happens in a gun-free zone such as Fort Hood (yes, military bases in the US are often gun free zones for most of the people in them).

Whichever path is taken initially is the path that gets reinforced. That's how we ended up with the vastly divergent camps and policies in the US, though the 2nd Amendment should have prevented that by enforcing gun rights throughout the nation.

This entry was published Tue Jun 23 13:51:30 CDT 2015 by TriggerFinger and last updated 2015-06-23 13:51:30.0. [Tweet]

comments powered by Disqus

Subscribe to Atom Feed

I am not a lawyer, and nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice.

This site is run on custom blog software and is being actively developed. Please be forgiving of errors.

This website is an Amazon affiliate and will receive financial compensation for products purchased from Amazon through links on this site.