Two Democratic Representatives from Chicago have asked Illinois Governor Pat Quinn to send in the Illinois National Guard to help fight violent crime in the city. Yep. That handgun ban is working really well, ain’t it?
Disarm the populace then send in the troops. The left’s recipe for “freedom.”
In what can only be described as shoddy journalism, CNN is reporting that there was a shooting at Ohio State University.
A man apparently angry over a poor performance evaluation entered an Ohio State University maintenance building early Tuesday and opened fire, killing a manager before turning the gun on himself, police said.
But we all know this couldn’t have happened because OSU is a gun-free zone.
The university’s response was truly bizarre.
E-mail alerts were sent to students warning them about the shooting, the university said.
Yep. Send ’em an email. That’ll keep the kids safe when the gunfire is already over. At least the students aren’t fooled by the system.
The student newspaper, The Lantern, published an article Sunday saying that students were questioning the effectiveness of such e-mail alerts after three serious crimes last week.
Duh. A system that sends you an email after a shooting or sexual assault (last week’s crimes) isn’t terribly useful in helping you avoid being shot or raped by the criminal. Look how helpful it was to the OSU employee who was killed today.
When will we drop the charade that gun-free zones are either gun-free or safe?
According to MSNBC, a professor at the University of Alabama-Huntsville has killed three of her colleagues and wounded three others. I don’t buy it. It’s illegal to carry a handgun on the UAH campus, so this couldn’t possibly have happened.
The police responded quickly, but not soon enough for the three who died. When will we drop the pretense that “gun-free” zones are gun-free…or safe? At least one student showed the common sense we need.
Gina Hammond, a UAH student, told WAFF that she lobbied the University of Alabama trustees to allow students with gun permits to carry their weapons on campus. She was turned down.
“I’m scared to go back to school,” Hammond said. “However, if they were to allow me to carry my pistol on campus, I would not be as scared.
“… I’m sorry that nobody in that room had a pistol to save at least one person’s life,” Hammond said.
It’s long past time to rethink the policy that provides target-rich environments and turns the law-abiding into victims.
“This is a tragedy of immeasurable proportions and a terrible a blow to our community,” said U.S. Rep. Parker Griffith, R-Ala., in whose district the shootings occurred. “Now is a time for thoughtful prayer for those affected.”
No. Now is a time to allow the innocent to protect themselves.
I’ve added a new page to the site to provide contact information for Arizona businesses that post signs banning the possession of handguns. Please feel free to send additions. I will post them when I can verify company policy and contact information.
An 82-year-old woman was stabbed 9 times in London Monday while walking home from shopping. How is she supposed to defend herself against such an attack by a man much younger and stronger? In the UK she can’t, as she’s not allowed to own a handgun for self-defense. Another victim of senseless gun control laws.
The BBC reports that a man with two pistols shot another man in the leg in a London restaurant. We all know, however, that this could not possibly have happened because private ownership of handguns is illegal in England.
CNN reports an Iowa high school football coach was shot and killed in the school’s weight room. We all know, however, that this couldn’t possibly have really happened because guns aren’t allowed on campus and criminals obey gun laws.
How is an elderly man expected to defend himself when he is attacked by three much younger, much stronger thugs? In the UK, he can’t. This poor man was savegely beaten and stabbed to death because he couldn’t legally own a handgun even for the purpose of self defense within his own home.
The attack was captured on a hidden camera installed after Mr Baker had previously been attacked.
Security cameras do not stop violent crimes. Guns often do. Another senseless victim of insane gun control laws.
CNN reports that authorites say the rifle used by James von Brunn to commit murder at the Holocaust Memorial Museum can’t be traced back to the original purchaser. What would be the point? The original purchaser didn’t commit this heinous act. Does it really matter who bought the gun? Other than returning the gun to the original owner? Why? It’s likely von Brunn purchased the gun legally and was the rightful owner (though not likely the original owner—it was manufactured between 1908-1928).
If a drunk driver kills someone, do we trace the car back to its original owner? Hunt down the 10 year old who bought the Louisville Slugger used by a street punk to bash the head of a mugging victim? Tracing guns used in crimes is equally absurd. The original owner didn’t commit this crime. Mr. von Brunn did.
In an unrelated note, a visitor to the museum displayed an all too common folly:
“We want to see the museum, and we trust the city of Washington to keep us safe,” he said. “Had we been in that lobby we could have been in the line of fire.”
Your trust, sir, would have been sadly misplaced as von Brunn clearly demonstrated. Had von Brunn chosen to open fire on the visitor, the city of Washington would have been helpless to protect him. Your personal protection is your responsibility. Except, of course, in DC where it’s virtually impossible to legally carry a handgun for self defense.
When it rains it pours. There another silly story going around about a gun incident at a middle school in Louisiana. Of course we know it can’t possibly be true because shotguns and handguns are banned on campus and we all know gun bans stop gun crime.