The author argues that a law or a sign that says, “No guns allowed. Murder is illegal” renders criminals with the only option of not having a gun. He maintains this argument even in the face of the Jan. 8 shooting in Tucson where several individuals were shot in spite of the fact that the acts were all illegal.The gun lobby has long argued that mass shooters exclusively target “gun-free zones” and, confusingly, that the presence of firearms can deter suicidal individuals. The firearms industry maintains this argument even in the face of the Jan. 8 shooting in Tucson that nearly took the life of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Arizona allows the concealed carry of firearms without any background check or permit.
In an ambush it also does not matter if the victims are unarmed. The two martial arts students would not have had the chance to stand up any more if there had been a law that outlawed handguns. The lack of a gun would not have saved them if they didn’t have time to move either. Taking away the guns of law abiding citizens would not have saved 9-year-old Tucson victim Christina Green.Shootings have more in common with ambushes than duels — and in an ambush, it doesn’t matter how the victims are armed. Two of my martial arts students died in the Virginia Tech shooting; neither had a chance even to stand up, and one never saw her killer enter the room. Guns would not have saved them if they didn’t have time to move. So, we must begin to ask ourselves: What do we do for those who can’t simply get strapped, such as 9-year-old Tucson victim Christina Green?
Putting the U.K. up as the shining example of gun control working is laughable since gun crime has sky rocketed since implementation.Then, when a major tragedy occurs, the NRA simply claims that gun control doesn’t work. Yet we see clear evidence that it does work in the U.K., where the homicide rate is one-fourth of that seen in America.
Anti-gunners claim that gun-free zones are always that, gun-free. Mass shooters will not carry in a gun-free zone. Do I really have to comment upon the ridiculousness of such thought?The NRA claims that mass shooters love gun-free zones. Mass shooters do not target gun-free zones because they lack guns. They target gun-free zones because such places are considered sanctuaries. The shooter at my alma mater wanted to take away our feeling of safety in classrooms.
Good thing he conveniently left out the 1966 sniper shooting that left 16 dead and 31 wounded. Guess you can select the right time frame and no one would have been killed. But so much for the gun-free zone just the same.A rational look at the statistics shows that even counting Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University, we remain safe in classrooms. According to a Department of Justice study, 93 percent of violent crimes against students happen off campus. Indeed, the University of Texas at Austin has experienced only three homicides in the last 30 years. I cannot imagine improving that rate by adding guns, except perhaps in the hands of professional law enforcement officers.
Protecting? First time in the article he mentions any type of protection. Hmmm, I wonder how he plans on doing that? Allowing private carry does not guarantee a superman to be available when tragedy occurs. Banning private carry guarantees, unless law enforcement is near, only the villain will be armed.I hope Texas will join me, along with the survivors of the Virginia Tech shooting, in protecting the sanctuaries that are our classrooms.