Gun Defenselessness Laws: Feeling more safe, being less safe

The other day a bunch of indoctrinated school children marched out of class, probably with adult encouragement, to demand more Gun Defenselessness laws. They claim only more Gun Defenselessness laws will keep them safe.

Since people willing to break the law in a mass shooting are also willing to steal guns or buy them illegally if they have to, the Gun Defenselessness laws only affect the kind of people who would defend people from a mass shooter. One early school shooting was stopped by a teacher who went out to his locked car to retrieve his hunting gun. That action would now be illegal because of gun-free school laws.

Some people think that schools can be safe if armed police officers are forced to run into shooting scenes without knowing if they are running in to the line of fire. There is not enough money in the world to force police officers to do that. Nor will they be willing to search all American homes to search for guns— the only way Gun Defenselessness laws will affect the gun supply. You can’t pay people enough to sacrifice their lives uselessly.

Several mass shootings have taken place in buildings that proclaim themselves gun-free zones. Of course. Shooters don’t care to be shot back at.

Another proposal is to demonize people who have ever sought therapy of any sort, since they might be ‘mentally ill.’ Most mentally ill people are not dangerous, and a military veteran who went to marriage counselling should not lose his right to hunt and to protect himself with guns.

Statistics show there is actually more ‘gun crime’ in locations with a lot of gun defenselessness laws. Places where a lot of law-abiding people own guns have less ‘gun crime’ and violent crime. Because criminals are afraid of getting shot.

Gun Defenselessness laws make people less safe, even though they may feel safer because they have been indoctrinated. Let us hope that the indoctrinated children will somehow learn how to think logically and check their facts before they get to voting age.

Orlando: Did too much gun control cost lives?

Islamist terrorist Omar Mateen

As a gay (chaste) woman I am appalled that the worst mass shooting in US history targeted a nightclub filled with gay people. Just shows that people like me are a target of the ISIS terrorists who are at war with our nation and the civilized world.

But the president had to ruin everything as usual by ignoring the Islamic connection and focus on his partisan push to de facto repeal the Second Amendment with ‘gun control’ laws. Because it’s gun control that makes mass shootings like this a possibility.

It is the gun control movement that in this gay nightclub filled with 300 people, most gay people who had reason to fear gay-bashing attackers, no one seemed to have a concealed handgun handy to stop the POS shooter in his tracks. If only a handful of the people in the nightclub had guns, surely one would have been in a position to stop this massacre.

But gun control laws make responsible citizens fear arrest if they carry guns as the Second Amendment says they can. Too many people have been brainwashed by the gun controllers into thinking ‘nice’ people don’t even want to protect themselves with guns. And the result is a rash of mass shootings, nearly all in jurisdictions with strict gun control laws that reassure would-be mass shooters that their victims are disarmed.

As a former stalker of mine (long story) once said, armed Gays don’t get bashed. Even now when Gay people seem to have the ability to bully others into going along with the radical gay activist agenda, Gay people get beaten, threatened and killed by gay-haters.

More gay people need to take responsibility for their own safety by buying guns and learning how to use them. Statistics show that in areas where many ordinary citizens own legal guns, crime rates fall. Which makes sense. Criminals, and even terrorists, don’t really care for getting shot to death. So let us hope that the gay community will wise up and protect themselves. They DO make guns in pink these days, you know.

I realize that this post will offend pretty much everybody, left wing or right wing. And so, to really kill this blog’s readership, I’m going to suggest everybody go visit a FB page I admin: We Defend Traditional Marriage— And We’re Gay. I offend even more people there. 😉

There is no screening for Future Bad Acts

When certain things happen, some people thing rigorous screening (of other people) will save us. We should screen refugees, would-be immigrants, mental patients, people with a history of violent behavior— and if we do it right, we are all 100% safe from everything.

Except that kind of screening isn’t possible. We can screen people on their histories, and on their current associations and intentions. We can’t determine what they will do in the future because even they don’t know it yet.

People change. Think of the ardent young atheist who goes off to college and becomes a Christian. Think of the young psychologist who thinks he can change everyone through therapy who ages into someone who thinks ‘lock them up and throw away the key’ about most criminals.

Some bad changes even make sense. Imagine some person of faith— Christian, Hindu, Jewish or Muslim— who comes from a more innocent part of the world. He is thrown into an American big city where he learns he must support homosexual behavior and homosexual marriage to keep his job, and if he is in the medical profession must support abortions and dole out abortion-causing pills— or else. He sees blatant prostitution on every street corner and learns that the schools will teach his kindergarten child about homosexual relationships and his teenage child that not having sex before marriage is weird and a possible sign of mental problems. Isn’t all that enough to drive a guy insane, possibly in a messy, violent way?

The United States has a long history of imperfectly screening immigrants. Even before the US was a nation, the people that came to these shores were not carefully screened, in fact, some were send as a punishment for criminal acts. And the Indians and the Pilgrims didn’t screen one another particularly well, or they probably wouldn’t have tried to live in close proximity.

We survived. And we will continue to survive. Because it’s not really unscreened immigrants who might or might not have terrorist ties that are the big risk we face. We could save more American lives by getting 10% more people to use their seat belts than we could by banning all new immigrants. We could prevent more mass shootings by giving 10% more law-abiding citizens the opportunity to get concealed-carry firearm permits.

But what really does endanger us as a distinct and mostly-good nation is when we let fear or propaganda persuade us to give up American values and American personal freedom in favor of measures that not make us safer, merely more supervised and controlled.

One Reason Why ‘Gun Control’ Can’t Prevent Mass Killings

Some years ago I bought a gun magazine. In it there was an article on how to make a black-powder pistol. The writer of the article said something on the lines of ‘we have all made black powder rifles in our home workshops, but did you know you could make a black-powder pistol as well?’

So as soon as some ‘gun control’ law makes every single gun in the world magically disappear, the hunters and rugged individualists will go into their home workshops and get to work. In twelve hours there will be guns in the hands of these people.

In a week the criminals will be aware of this possibility and will set up gun-making workshops to arm themselves first, and then to sell guns on the black market.

People such as the shooter in Virginia yesterday, if they cannot figure out how to make their own gun, will have the option of getting a black market gun, or buying, borrowing or stealing one from a hunter of their acquaintance. They will also have the option of killing with knives, crossbows or chainsaws.

It’s the people who are not hunters or criminals who will be defenseless. I’d hate to be a domestic violence victim with no option for effective self-defense against a strong and violent ex-spouse. And when the ex-spouse kills her with his bare hands, the gun controllers will say, “She can’t be that dead, it wasn’t gun violence.”