This was posted by a good buddy of mine who has seen what tyrants can do firsthand when he was in the Middle East. He definitely hits the nail on the head.
Frustrates me when the other side of an argument uses erroneous facts to make their case, completely infuriates me when people on my side do the same.
Do not have the patience to deconstruct and correct all the errors in the ‘Sandy Hook Conspiracy’ videos, just putting it out there that the word “moronic” would probably be the most commonly used adjective if I were to do so.
A few points to support my view (fewer guns and more gun laws are not the answer, but rather more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens is):
Since 1950 there have been two cases where mass shootings (3 or more victims) occurred in public places that allowed for law-abiding citizens to carry firearms. I can see three possibilities for this fact: gun-free areas are intentionally targeted, the presence of law-abiding gun owners stops the act before three victims are created, or it’s just one massive statistical anomaly (the belief in which skirts dangerously close to the absurd).
There has never been an incident at a school or university where someone was killed by a citizen lawfully carrying on campus. Which is allowed much more than you might think.
There has never been an incident wherein a lawfully carrying citizen used their firearm to stop a mass killing and also struck an innocent bystander.
Citizens with a concealed carry licenses perform acts which cause the loss of their concealed carry permit at a rate of less than .001%. Yes, I typed that number correctly, and the percent sign is used correctly. Can you say “Statistically Insignificant”? I knew you could.
Despite the large number of mass shootings occurring in gun free zones, no mass shooting has ever taken place at: a Police Athletic League Youth Sports Event, a Youth Rifle and Shotgun Match, Youth Skeet Shooting Contest, or field trip to a Police Station. . . you get my point.
Nearly all mass shootings end when someone else with a gun shows up following the commencement of shooting, whether a law enforcement officer or law-abiding citizen. I can only find three examples where some other cause ended the shooting (one was a stool striking the perpetrator, and in one case someone yelled, “STOP”, and it worked).
The fastest police response in such incidents is 6 minutes. So, you can either work to allow properly licensed citizens to carry the means to defend themselves, you, and your children in the event of a mass shooting; or instruct your child to set their watch for 6 minutes and then try to survive. Good luck.
Assault Rifle is a proper term, but NOT ONE mass shooting has involved an Assault Rifle. For example, Battle Rifle is also a proper term, but refers to a class of weapon largely left behind by modern militaries (FN FAL, G3, are some examples). Terms like “Military Style Assault Weapons” are intentional used in a manner similar to pseudo-cheese which is described as “Cheese Food” because they technically can not call the product “Cheese”, but they want to trick people into thinking that’s what they mean.
“You are more likely to die from your own firearm, than you are to to kill an intruder.” This one really makes me sick. Using the same logic, you are more likely to die accidentally while driving your own car, than you are to save a family member’s life by driving them to the hospital, is a perfectly valid argument for governing all motor vehicles at 40 MPH. After all, if it saves one life, it’s worth it. Besides, the point is not just to kill an intruder. To be considered a successful use of a firearm in home defense you have to also count the following: Intruder’s shot but not killed; Intruder’s shot at but not hit; Intruder’s who fled after a warning shot; Intruder’s who fled after the presentation of a weapon, the number of all incidents in which the homeowner did not report the effective defensive use of a firearm for fear of prosecution or other punitive action on the part of authorities or society (confiscation, for example), etc. Limiting the positive effects of firearms in home defense intruder deaths is like limiting the positive effects of law enforcement to deaths of suspects.
The Second Amendment was not adopted because the founders had come out of a particularly brutal hunting season, but because they had come out of a war lasting longer than the US involvement in WWI and WWII combined, wherein the people used guns to shoot to death as many of the government’s representatives as they possibly could, in as short a time as possible. Therefore, how many bullets it takes to kill a deer, is utterly irrelevant when discussing abridging the current rights afforded to law-abiding citizens.
In DC v Heller the majority held: “1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53.”
If you just read the quote above and thought something along the lines of “Well, were not talking about the use of firearms in the home”, I can only say, HAH! Read the entire decision, it’s actually worse for you than you think:
I could go on, but anyone still reading this is either already in agreement with me, or intractably mired in the opposite view, and is simply reading out of hate.
Except for the three of you who don’t agree with me, and are actually still looking for facts contrary to your currently held view because you do have an open mind, even when wrong. And I’ll see one of you this Sunday at 1 PM.