Saturday, June 18, 2016
Would a few more than the current 20,000+ gun laws already on the books have stopped this? Really?
What finally ended the mass murderer, Omar Mateen's, bloody shooting spree? Was it a law? Nope.
It was a bullet, wasn't it? A bullet fired from the gun of another person who put an end to the killing of even more innocents. In this case it was fired by a cop, but in tens of thousands of other instances the killer was stopped by an ordinary person who had a gun and knew how to use it.
There are very few cops and they can't be everywhere, can they? Nor should they be. Everyone has a right and a duty to defend their own lives and property. And history has proven, irrefutably, the best tool that exists on the planet to defend against a violent aggressor is a gun. A gun in the hands of a cop or in the hands of an ordinary person. Both face the same risks, don't they. How many cops got shot here? So who really needed to be armed the most? The cops or the victims?
A gun is the greatest equalizer there is. What would have happened in the Pulse nightclub if 4 or 5 or 10 or 20 of the other people there would have been armed and proficient in using a gun? Would 49 people still have been murdered? Or do you you think Mateen might have been stopped before he could only murder more than a few people?
Look, he was stopped by a bullet wasn't he and how long did it take for that bullet to reach him? The cops got there pretty quickly but they didn't stop Mateen for three more hours. How many people were murdered in that time span? What would have prevented their deaths? More laws? More infringements on inalienable rights?
Or more guns in the hands of the victims and the people inside?
This isn't rocket science. It is simple common sense logic.
If bad guys have guns then good guys have to have them also. At the same time! Otherwise the good guys will always be the victims.
As long as there are bad people, more guns in the hands of ordinary citizens are the answer and always have been no matter what your rulers tell you.
If laws alone stopped criminals we wouldn't have criminals, would we?
By definition a criminal is someone who ignores and disregards laws, right? And what gives any law teeth? A "good guy" with a gun, right? All laws are backed by and enforced by people with guns one way or another. Cops are called law enforcers, aren't they?
Bad people, people who want to hurt, rob, assault, murder and control other people will always have guns, no matter what laws exist to prevent that. History is absolutely clear on this. Those bad people are criminals, right? They don't care about laws and ignore them whenever they choose. However, they love laws which disarm their chosen victims and make them easier to harm. That is why these massacres always happen in places where the people are known or expected to be disarmed and easy targets. Again, that is just common sense.
4 or 5 armed people in that club would have changed that whole outcome dramatically and many more people would still be living their lives on this earth if they had been "criminals," too.
And do you notice how all the people clamoring for more gun laws, which only serve to create more potential victims for the criminal class, are protected by armed bodyguards? Why do they think their lives are so much more valuable than yours? Why are they such hypocrites? Shouldn't that make you question their motives at the very least? And question their character, integrity and morals for valuing your life and liberty so little? They demand you be unarmed and at the same time they make you pay for their bodyguards.
Face the facts. Ultimately, a gun in the hands of a good guy stopped the bad guy here. And a gun or guns in the hands of more good guys would have stopped Mateen even sooner if there hadn't been laws preventing it. Those laws were one of the main contributing factors to all those murders and injuries. Mateen knew or had every reason to believe he would be relatively unopposed since guns were banned from that bar.
How many mass killings have happened at a gun range? Police station?
Gun show? Why not? Why are they always in places known to make having a gun there illegal? Are politicians blind? Can they not see that 2 and 2 make 4? What is their real agenda? Do they want these types of tragedies to happen so they can use them to further their own schemes?
If they think you should be unprotected why don't they set the example by living the same way? Who gets murdered more; ordinary people or politicians? So who really needs protection more?
Whether you want to admit it or not a gun in the hands of somebody good is required to stop a gun in the hands of somebody bad. Just the way it is. It has always been that way and always will.
So, who do you trust more? Yourself or your neighbor with a gun or a cop who may or may not show up in time to do any good and might not want to risk their life even if they do show up in time, to make a difference.
Cities and states with more armed citizens have proven lower homicide and violent assault rates than cities and states that restrict civilian ownership and carry. How do you explain that away? How do the politicians explain that away?
Do you really think any politician gives a damn about you and whether you live or die? If so, why would you think that? Where is the proof any of them really care about the people they rule over?
Are you going to let them dictate how you live or die when they themselves refuse to live by the same rules? Why would you defer to them? Because they tell you you have to? Does that make any sense at all?
Sure doesn't to me.
Look at what this guy decided he needed to protect himself from the same threat all the victims inside faced with nothing. He needed all this yet he would have arrested and thrown in a cage any one of those innocents who were shot or killed who had had a concealed weapon for their own protection. Is his life more valuable than any one of theirs?