Texas Town Allows Teachers to Carry Concealed Guns

Texas law bans guns in schools unless school gives authorization

From www.nbcdfw.com, Thursday, Dec 20, 2012

In a tiny Texas town near the Oklahoma border, children and their parents don’t give much thought to safety at the community’s lone school.

That’s because some teachers are carrying concealed weapons.

In remote Harrold, the nearest sheriff’s office is 30 minutes away. So the school board voted to let teachers bring guns to school about five years ago. They must have a concealed-weapons permit, and each employee also must be approved by the board.

In the awful aftermath of last week’s Connecticut elementary school shooting, lawmakers in at least five states have said they’ll consider laws allowing teachers and administrators to carry firearms at school.

Texas law bans guns in schools unless the school has given written authorization. Arizona and some other states have similar laws.

Published in: on December 20, 2012 at 5:28 pm  Leave a Comment  

Media Ignore Numerous School Massacres Stopped by Gun Owners Defending Children

J. D. Heyes, Natural News, December 19, 2012 via www.ten8.wordpress.com

In the midst of all the anti-gun hysteria following the senseless murder of 26 people – 20 of them first graders – at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., one story that is repeatedly overlooked is how often a firearm has been used to save lives and stop senseless murders.

We here at Natural News believe the mainstream media, which so often overlooks these kinds of stories because they don’t fit into the statist government worldview held by the majority of news editors, has done a disservice to the public by ignoring these acts of selflessness and heroism.

With that in mind, we bring just some of the most recent high-profile incidents – including what could have been additional school massacres – that were stopped by law-abiding citizens using their Second Amendment rights to protect themselves and others. Scores of individual uses that never get reported are not included here:

Pearl High School, Mississippi: This incident began the morning of Oct. 1, 1997, when 16-year-old student Luke Windham entered the school with a rifle. Wearing only an orange jumpsuit and a trench coat and making no effort to hide his weapon, he initially entered the school and shot and killed two students, injuring seven others. He was stopped by assistant principal Joel Myrick, who retrieved a .45 cal. handgun from the glove box of his truck.

“I’ve always kept a gun in the truck just in case something like this ever happened,” said Myrick at the time, who went on to become principal of Corinth High School, Corinth, Miss.

Appalachia Law School, Virginia: On Jan. 16, 2002, Peter Odighizuwa, 43, a former student from Nigeria, arrived on the campus of the school with a handgun around 1:00 p.m. and immediately killed three people, at least two of them at point-blank range. Two students – Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges – both retrieved handguns from their vehicles and confronted Odighizuwa. As former police officers, both men were trained to subdue suspects but the fact is they were on the scene and armed, and helped prevent more killings.

Muskegon, Michigan: From the Aug. 23, 1995, issue of the Muskegon Chronicle: “Plans to slay everyone in the Muskegon, Michigan, store and steal enough cash and jewelry to feed their ‘gnawing hunger for crack cocaine’ fell apart for a band of would-be killers after one of their victims fought back. Store owner Clare Cooper was returning behind the counter after showing three of the four conspirators some jewelry, when one of the group pulled out a gun and shot him four times in the back. Stumbling for the safety of his bullet-proof glass-encased counter, Cooper managed to grab his shotgun and fire as the suspects fled.

Colorado Springs, Colo.: On Dec. 9, 2007, gunman Mathew Murray, 24, launched an armed attack against the parishioners of the New Life Church that ultimately left two innocent victims dead. But the toll could have been much higher, were it not for the heroic actions of former police officer Jeanne Assam from Minnesota. In an interview she said she very nearly decided not to go to church that morning but because she saw a headline on her computer indicating that two young people were murdered and a training center for Christian missionaries about 70 miles away in the Denver suburb of Arvada, she changed her mind. Murray shot a total of five people before an armed Assam shot and killed him. There were about 7,000 people at the church at the time of the attack.

“Criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million Americans use guns to defend themselves each year. Out of that number, 400,000 believe that but for their firearms, they would have been dead,” columnist Larry Elder wrote in July, following the shooting tragedy at the premier of the latest Batman movie in Aurora, Colo.

“We know from Census Bureau surveys that something beyond 100,000 uses of guns for self-defense occur every year,” adds Professor Emeritus James Q. Wilson, a public policy expert at the University of California-Los Angeles. “We know from smaller surveys of a commercial nature that the number may be as high as two-and-a-half or three million. We don’t know what the right number is, but whatever the right number is, it’s not a trivial number.”

Published in: on December 20, 2012 at 11:01 am  Leave a Comment  

Ten “Liberal” Lies People Believe about Guns

From The New American by Selwyn Duke, December 18, 2012

In the wake of the tragic Newtown massacre, we’re hearing all the usual lies and misconceptions about firearms. And since it’s wise to be educated on a topic before advocating policy on it, this is a good time to explode the gun myths being bandied about.

Lie #1: The issue is automatic weapons.

Boston mayor Thomas Menino and CNN’s Don Lemon both recently repeated the common mantra that we have to get “automatic weapons” off the streets. Automatic weapons, however, are machine guns, which, except for individuals who receive special permission from the federal government, have been illegal to own since the passage of The National Firearms Act in 1934. In addition, the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 made it generally illegal for any civilian to own an automatic weapon manufactured after that year.

Lie #2: Assault Weapons

“Assault weapon” is certainly a menacing, rhetorically effective term, which is why the media use it so much. In reality, though, the guns in question (such as the AR-15-type rifles and AK-47s available to the public) are not machine guns but simply semi-automatic firearms; this means that one bullet is released with each trigger pull. And virtually every gun sold in America is semi-automatic.

A true “assault weapon” would be fully automatic or have a “special-fire” feature. What the guns incorrectly labeled assault weapons do have is a military appearance. But if looks are everything, we might as well put a Porsche body on a Yugo chassis and call it a race car.

Lie #3: The 1990s Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) got these weapons off the street.

After the Colorado movie-theater shooting, the Daily News wrote, “Once, federal law would have kept [shooter James] Holmes’ hands off a superdeadly [sic] weapon like the AR-15. In 1994, under President Bill Clinton, Congress outlawed the manufacture and possession of assault weapons, but the statute had a 10-year expiration date.”

But media ignorance, it seems, has no expiration date. The AWB did nothing to eliminate weapons such as the one Holmes — or Newtown shooter Adam Lanza — used. It simply outlawed the sale of such firearms when they had certain combinations of relatively insignificant, superficial features, such as a bayonet mount and a pistol grip, or a folding stock and a flash suppressor. But the guns themselves were still readily available.

So, sorry, my liberal friends, but Bill Clinton and the rest of your leftist leadership conned you.

Lie #4: What we’re calling “assault weapons” are especially deadly

As with the Newtown shooter, James Holmes’ “menacing looking” AR-15 got all the attention; in reality, however, most of his victims died of shotgun wounds. The New York Times explained why, writing, “If anything, the experts said, a shotgun in that [soft-target, close-quarters] situation might have been the most lethal, since every shell can spray a half-dozen or more pellets, each capable of killing or maiming a person.”

Except there’s no “if” about it. A shotgun is a hand cannon. This is why G. Gordon Liddy once said that, when he was at the FBI, the agents’ gun of choice when going out on a raid would be a shotgun, not an automatic or semi-automatic rifle.

Lie #5: Guns aren’t generally used for self defense

While evil dones with guns makes headlines, we don’t hear about the evil thwarted with them. But according to Florida State University criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck, citizens use guns to defend themselves approximately two million times per year.

Lie #6: Foreign nations have lower murder rates because of gun control.

Britain is often used as an example. But as Thomas Sowell recently wrote:

Britain has had a lower murder rate than the United States for more than two centuries — and, for most of that time, the British had no more stringent gun control laws than the United States….

The crime rate, including the rate of crimes committed with guns, is far higher in Britain now than it was back in the days when there were few restrictions on Britons buying firearms.

In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s — after decades of ever tightening gun ownership restrictions — there were more than a hundred times as many armed robberies.

Sowell also points out that Russia, Mexico, and Brazil have stricter gun-control laws than the United States but higher murder rates, while the Swiss have a far higher gun-ownership rate than the Germans but a lower murder rate. Other nations he cites as having high gun ownership but little murder are Israel, Finland, and New Zealand.

Lie #7: School massacres are a modern American phenomenon.

Untrue. As John Fund writes:

Mass shootings are no more common than they have been in past decades….

In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.

Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s [during the “assault weapons” ban] to 26 in the first decade of this century.

The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are about what they are for being struck by lightning.

Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K–12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany.

Then there is Norway, where in 2011 Anders Breivik murdered 77 people. In contrast, while I don’t have precise figures, let’s very generously estimate the number of people killed in American mass murders during the last 30 years to be 500. Given that our population is 310 million and Norway’s is only 5 million, this means that Norway’s mass-murder rate is almost 10 times as high as ours.

Beware of Norway, the mass-murder capital of the world.

Lie #8: Americans want more gun control

Celinda Lake and Joshua Ulibarri of progressive Lake Research recently asserted this in an op-ed. Yet it’s deceptive. The public does support criminal background checks and making it more difficult for the mentally ill and drug users to acquire weapons. In addition, they may support a ban on the incorrectly labeled “assault weapons” only because of the belief that they’re machine guns. But the truth is, writes David Frum, that “support for gun control has collapsed in the United States” over the past 20 years.

Lie #9: More guns mean more crime

Legal scholar John Lott refuted this years ago in his book More Guns, Less Crime. Thomas Sowell also addressed this myth in the earlier cited article, writing:

The rate of gun ownership … is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks. For the country as a whole, hand gun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down.

Lie #10: The Second Amendment only guarantees a right to raise a militia

Not according to leading Second Amendment scholar Stephen Halbrook, Ph.D. As he wrote in his book That Every Man be Armed:

In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the “collective” right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of “the people” to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis. The phrase “the people” meant the same thing in the Second Amendment as it did in the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments — that is, each and every free person.

As a bonus, I’ll include something else apparently untrue: the media’s claim to desire honesty in Second Amendment discussion. For example, Celinda Lake and Joshua Ulibarri wrote in their editorial that they wanted “open and honest debate” and that people such as me “should welcome a gun-control debate — especially if they think they have the winning hand.” Well, I wrote to them and said that I’d debate them, as I put it, “anytime, anywhere.” As of this writing, they have not responded to my challenge.

Published in: on December 19, 2012 at 6:48 pm  Leave a Comment  

Gun-free Zones Are “Magnets for Mass Shooters”

From The New American by Jack Kenny, December 17, 2012

Gun-free zones are invitations to mass murder, gun-rights advocates argued after a lone gunman’s shooting rampage at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, Friday left 20 children and six adults dead. John Lott, author of the controversial 1999 bestseller More Guns, Less Crime, said in an interview with Newsmax.com Saturday it is no coincidence that mass shootings with multiple victims occur repeatedly in designated gun-free zones such as schools, shopping malls, and movie theaters.

“The problem is, whether it is the Portland [Oregon] shooting earlier this week, or the Connecticut shooting Friday, or the Sikh temple attack in Wisconsin, time after time these attacks take place in the few areas within a state where permit-concealed handguns are banned,” Lott said. “It’s not just this year, it’s all these years in the past. And at some point people have to recognize that despite the obvious desire to make places safe by banning guns, it unintentionally has the opposite effect.”

The effect, said Lott, is to encourage a killer to believe it will be easier to commit the mayhem he has in mind in an environment where no one will be able to shoot back.

“If you had a violent criminal stalking you or your family, and was really seriously threatening you, would you feel safer putting a sign up in front of your home stating, ‘This home is a gun-free zone?'” Lott asked. “My guess is you wouldn’t do that. And I’ve never run into any gun-control proponents who would do that either. And the reason is pretty clear: Putting a sign there saying this is a gun-free home isn’t going to cause the criminals to say, ‘Oh, I don’t want to break the law, so I’m not going to go in and attack these people.’ It encourages them to do it. It serves as a magnet for him, if he’s going to engage in this attack, that that’s the place where he is going to engage in, because he finds that it is going to be easier to do it there. Yet every time we have one of these mass shooting incidents, it renews the call from the media and the left for banning guns.”

Lott recalled this summer’s shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, where 12 people were killed and 58 wounded when a killer opened fire with semi-automatic weapons.

There, you have seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie when it opened at the end of July. Out of those seven movie theaters, only one movie theater was posted as banning permit-concealed handguns. The killer didn’t go to the movie theater that was closest to his home. He didn’t go to the movie theater that was the largest movie theater in Colorado, which was essentially the same distance from his apartment as the one he ended up going to. Instead, the one he picked was the only one of those movie theaters that banned people taking permit-concealed handguns into that theater.

The 1999 killings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, and a number of school shootings since have prompted school boards and administrators across the country to resort to security locks, surveillance cameras, and emergency lockdown drills to prevent similar horrors from happening at their schools. None of that prevented the carnage at the Newtown school Friday, where alleged killer Adam Lanza reportedly shot his way through a school window to break into the building. In the path of a determined killer, a safe retreat to a secure hiding place is often impossible, Lott said.

“Simply telling them to behave passively turns out to be pretty bad advice,” he told Newsmax. “By far the safest course of action for people to take when they are confronting a criminal is to have a gun. This is particularly true for the people in our society who are the most vulnerable.”

While some have called for arming teachers and principals, former Secretary of Education William Bennett suggested on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday that one armed, trained person in each school might be enough to prevent the kind of massacre that occurred in Connecticut on Friday. Appearing on the same panel, Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, quickly disagreed.

“We need to stop this routine view that having more guns will make us safer,” she said. The AFT is calling on Michigan Governor Rick Snyder to veto a bill, passed by the state’s legislature one day before the Connecticut shooting, that would allow the carrying of concealed weapons in schools. The bill passed over the opposition of the state’s school boards, the New York Times reported.

Gun bans at public colleges and universities have been a hotly debated issue since a Virginia Tech student in 2007 killed 32 and wounded 17 people in a shooting spree that finally ended when, as happened Friday in Newtown, the gunman took his own life. That massacre, still the deadliest school shooting ever, led to arguments by gun-control opponents that the university’s gun-free “safe zone” ensured that no one else on the campus would be armed and able to stop the killer.

A lawsuit filed the following year on behalf of two students and an alumnus at the University of Colorado led to a state Supreme Court decision in March of this year overturning the school’s 40-year-old ban on guns. The court ruled the ban violated a Colorado law, passed in 2003, that permits the carrying of concealed weapons. Karen Jacobs, who teaches English at the university, told the New York Times in September that knowing students may be armed could have a chilling effect on campus debate.

“This is a place where we depend on being able to speak our minds and offer sometimes controversial opinions in a free and open place,” Jacobs said. “The feeling among a percentage of faculty is that this will create a climate of fear and intimidation.”

In an opinion piece published Friday on the USA Today website, University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds argued that the climate is more than fearful, it is deadly when people are denied the means to defend themselves and others against an armed attack.

“If there’s someone present with a gun when a mass shooting begins, the shooter is likely to be shot himself,” Reynolds wrote. “And, in fact, many mass shootings — from the high school shooting by Luke Woodham in Pearl, Miss., to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo., where an armed volunteer shot the attacker — have been terminated when someone retrieved a gun from a car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.”

Reynolds said a number of his students have permits to carry guns but are barred from bringing them onto the university’s gun-free campus. After the Virginia Tech shooting, he recalled, a student asked if the class could be taught off-campus because she felt unsafe being unarmed.

“Given that gun-free zones seem to be a magnet for mass shooters, maybe we should be working to shrink or eliminate them, rather than expand them,” Reynolds wrote. “As they say, if it saves just one life, it’s worth it.”

Published in: on December 19, 2012 at 7:54 am  Leave a Comment  

Two Aurora Shootings: One Widely Known; the Other Ignored

From The New American by Bob Adelmann, July 21, 2012

On April 22 of this year a convicted felon, just out of jail, went to an Aurora, Colorado, church and shot and killed a member of the congregation before being killed himself by a congregant carrying a gun.

On July 20, following the horrific shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, President Obama offered his condolences to the victims of the more recent tragedy. “Our time here [on Earth] is limited and it is precious,” the president said. “And what matters at the end of the day is not the small things, it’s not the trivial things which so often consume us and our daily lives. It’s about how we choose to treat one another and how we love one another.”

Obama then led his supporters at a rally in Fort Myers, Florida, in a moment of silent prayer “for all the victims of less publicized acts of violence that plague our communities every single day.”

No doubt the president was unaware of the other, less-publicized lethal shooting that took place earlier in the year in Aurora, when there was only one victim, thanks to the quick thinking and action of a responsibly armed individual. Aurora police spokesman Frank Fania asked rhetorically: “Who knows what would’ve happened if the [church member, an off-duty police officer] had not been there? It certainly could have been a lot worse.”

How much worse? Could the killing spree have been as bad as the shooting at the movie theater, where a dozen victims lost their lives? Thankfully, we’ll never know.

The killer in the April shooting was 29-year-old Kiarron Parker, who had just been released from prison. He had been convicted for assaulting two police officers, drug abuse, and breaking and entering. The details are here and here. But the point is clear: Because the perpetrator was able to claim only one life before being killed himself by someone carrying a gun and acting in self-defense, it garnered relatively little publicity.

In contrast, by now there may hardly be a single sentient soul in the country who doesn’t yet know what happened on Friday, July 20 at about 12:38 a.m., when James Egan Holmes opened fire on a theater full of people attending the premier of the latest Batman movie, killing 12 individuals and wounding at least another 50.

If we’ve paid attention to the mega publicity the horrific July 20 tragedy has garnered, we know that Holmes entered the theater, bought a ticket, and sat in the front row. We know that about 10 minutes into the movie, he left the theater through the emergency door at the front of the theater, returning a few minutes later. We know that he was dressed up in SWAT gear, including chest protector, leg protectors, a black helmet, and black tactical gloves. We also know that he was wearing a gas mask and carrying two handguns, a shotgun — and what the media inaccurately, and relentlessly, referred to as an “assault rifle.” (The latter weapon was a semi-automatic rifle.)

We know that upon re-entering the theater through the same emergency door, Holmes threw two canisters of tear gas, striking one patron in the head. When both exploded, many patrons sat still, thinking that it was part of the Batman movie, with special effects.

We know that when he first fired his shotgun into the air, only then did the moviegoers realize that something was terribly wrong and start running for the exits. We know that the perp then turned his weapons on the hapless patrons and fired, round after round, pausing to reload when he ran out of ammunition, until 12 of moviegoers were dead or dying, and another 50 were wounded, some severely.

We know that Holmes’ car was parked outside the emergency exit. We know that he was arrested next to his vehicle without incident. We know that Holmes has no criminal record, save for a single speeding ticket.

But how many Americans know about the earlier shooting at an Aurora church? How many people in Colorado — or in Aurora for that matter — even know? I live in eastern Colorado, only about 70 miles from Aurora, yet I did not find out about the church shooting until I started doing research on the movie-theater shooting.

The little-known Aurora-church shooting illustrates how a tragedy (in this instance, the loss of one innocent life) can be prevented from becoming a much worse tragedy because one of the would-be victims was armed. The widely known movie-theater shooting illustrates the horrendous loss of life that can occur when the intended victims are not only defenseless but known by the perpetrator to be defenseless. Because movie theater was a “gun free” zone, it was an easy target for any madman wanting to prey on victims lacking the ability to fight back.

Anti-gun zealots, however, ignore how the absence of guns in the hands of the law-abiding encourages more crime, and in the Aurora movie-theater shooting they’ve found an opportunity to promote their agenda and have already seized it. For example, Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, was quick to opine:

This tragedy is another grim reminder that guns are the enablers of mass killers and that our nation pays an unacceptable price for our failure to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people….

We are outraged….

We don’t want sympathy. We want action!

And New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, virtually parroting Gross, claimed, “This is yet another horrific reminder that guns enable mass killings.” He went on to say:

Maybe it’s time that the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country.

This was just too much for Dudley Brown, executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, who countered:

The blatant attempt by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to use the blood of these innocents to advance his radical political agenda is disgusting. Mayor Bloomberg’s campaign succeeded in disarming not just these movie-goers [in Aurora], but has created millions of gun-free “criminal-safe zones” across the country.

The victims of this heinous act will not be comforted by being exploited for political gain by elected officials, especially [by] the mayor of one of the most violent cities in the country.

In an interview with The New American, Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, called such claims by the anti-gun zealots “not just hypocrisy but duplicity.” The victims in the movie theater were like “fish in a barrel” to the perpetrator because they were disarmed, thanks to the anti-gun agenda.

The contrast between the two Aurora shootings couldn’t be more striking. In the first, a potential holocaust was prevented by an armed citizen taking action. In the second, the perpetrator was free to act out his evil intent on unarmed innocents, knowing that none could return fire. The world knows about the Aurora movie-theater shooting; the world also needs to know about the Aurora church shooting.

Published in: on December 19, 2012 at 7:51 am  Leave a Comment  

China School Knife Attack, Portland Mall Attack Receive Little Coverage

From The New American by Thomas R. Eddlem

The same day as the tragic Newtown, Connecticut, school shooting, a Chinese man stabbed 22 children in China’s central province of Henan. The attack yielded almost no news coverage in the United States.

Although no fatalities have been reported in this particular Chinese stabbing incident, China — which has strict gun control laws — has had a spate of school stabbing massacres in recent years with many fatalities. In September, an ax-wielding Chinese man killed three school children and wounded another 13. And NBC News reported December 15 that “there was a particular string of knife attacks against schoolchildren across the country in early 2010 that killed nearly 20 and wounded more than 50.”

Also largely unreported by the national press was a would-be massacre stopped in a Portland-area mall by an armed citizen with a concealed-carry permit. 22-year-old Nick Meli was carrying his Glock 22 at the Clackamas Town Center, a mall in a town outside of Portland, Oregon, on the same day as the Newtown massacre. The contrast between the unarmed victims in Newtown and the Clackamas shooting was stark. Meli, seeing suspect 22-year-old Jacob Tyler Roberts shooting random shoppers with his AR-15, pulled his gun as Roberts’ gun jammed. Meli never even had to fire his gun to stop the shooting spree, which ended in the death of two innocents and the shooter himself. Meli held his fire because of the risk of shooting an innocent person. “As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them,” Meli told the local television station. “I know that after he saw me,  I think that the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself.”

While the message of gun control proponents is that massive deaths in lone shooter incidents would end if strict gun control laws are passed, Meli’s example is that deaths would be minimized by instead ending “no gun zones.” Meli’s anecdote is backed up by data from the U.S. Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, which reports that some 82,500 crimes across the nation are stopped by law-abiding gun owners annually, while only about 270 incidents involve the law-abiding citizen killing the criminal perpetrator (police also kill an average of 400 violent criminal suspects annually). The BJS also noted that law-abiding citizens were also far less likely to be injured in crimes while using firearms defending themselves. “A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon.”

Professor John R. Lott, interviewed on CNN after the Newtown massacre, noted,

Every place in the world that we have crime data, both before and after a gun ban has gone into effect, every single place has seen an increase in murders after the ban has been put in place. And many times it’s been a several-fold or more increase. And there’s a simple reason for that, and that is, when you ban guns, it’s basically the most-law-abiding citizens who turn in their guns, not the criminals. And rather than making it more difficult for criminals to commit crime, you actually make it easier.

Meanwhile, gun control advocates claim that U.S. crime rates are higher because of access to guns, citing deceptively selective statistics. Gun control advocates typically cite only murders where a firearm is used, not overall murder rates, and claim that the U.S. death rate is several multiples of other developed nations. But the reality is that availability of guns in the United States has led to an overall murder rate no higher than other developed nations, if one accounts for age and race. While the overall U.S. homicide rate is higher than most European nations, if one measures European-Americans to Europeans of the same age group, the rates are virtually identical. The U.S. murder rate among whites is 3.3 per 100,000, just a bit higher than most developed European nations. But European nations such as Germany are highly gentrified, comprised largely of older people who are far less likely to commit crimes, whereas the United States has a far younger average age for its population and far more youth. Likewise, Asian-American murder rates are lower than Caucasian-American murder rates, though higher than murder rates in most developed Asian nations such as Japan. But Japan also has a highly gentrified society, and like most of Europe is not producing enough children to replace the existing population. Once gentrification is factored in, the murder rates are virtually identical. Likewise, African-American murder rates — which are very high at 22 per 100,000 — are somewhat lower than murder rates in South Africa, the most developed nation on that continent.

Published in: on December 19, 2012 at 7:47 am  Leave a Comment  

Our children are dying for Our Insanity; It’s Time to Emulate Israel’s Successful Efforts to Prevent Mass Killings in Schools

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again in the same way and expecting different results.

– Unknown

by Jim Irvine

Like you, my heart sank when I heard the news of the mass killings in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.  “Not again,” I thought. How many people, especially our children must die before we change our thinking? Sadly I fear that 26, including 20 children who were only 6 or 7 years old is not enough.

Most people have seen a movie that they didn’t like the ending to. Last week was real life that we didn’t like the ending to. But unlike the movies where we must watch what someone else decides, in our own lives, with our own families and our own kids, we have the power to write our own ending. It is too late to save the lives of those lost in Newtown, Connecticut, but not for your children’s school.

Mass killings are not new and they are not “rare” anymore. After the killings at Century 16 movie theaters in Aurora Colorado this July, I predicted we would see at least one, but probably several more before the end of the year. Only weeks later, 6 people were killed in a Sikh temple Oak Creek, Wisconsin. There have been others. Today I predict that there will be still more of these events next year. I pray I’m wrong.

In prepared remarks, President Obama said “As a country, we have been through this too many times.  Whether it’s an elementary school in Newtown, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago — these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods, and these children are our children.  And we’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.”

I could not agree with him more strongly.

On May 15, 1974, three Palestinian terrorists killed 25 people including 22 Israeli children in Ma’alot. They had taken 115 people hostage in Netiv Meir Elementary School. Even though Israel is a smaller, more-close knit country, we are today, where they were then. They had the same resolve to take meaningful action as President Obama, and they carried through with it.

They decided that it made no sense to have armed people to protect money, but no one to protect their children. They realized the only reliable way to stop an evil person with a gun, was to have a good person with a gun on scene and ready to take action to stop the killing quickly. Such protection does not come cheaply, and like it or not, money is a factor in everything, including our children’s safety.

Today all Israeli children are protected by at least one armed person. In every school, on every school bus, at school functions and field trips. Parents and teachers are trained and armed. They volunteer to protect their children because they love them. They made a conscious decision that killing them would never again be made so easy. Last week, a total of zero children died in school shootings in Israel. I believe our parents love our children every bit as much as Israeli parents, and we could copy their success.

We have hundreds of multiple victim killings to study. They are premeditated events. We know that, like the terrible events on Friday, these attacks almost always occur in politically correct, so called “gun free zones.” How sadly ironic. Best of all, we know how to stop the attacks when they start. We must offer resistance and stop the killer. The faster we do this, the fewer people die.

President Obama has said we are going to “take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.” I predict he will do the exact opposite. He will use politics in all its many forms to fight for exactly the type of policies that enable killers to slaughter our children, and the killing will continue. I pray I am wrong.

How many more children must die before we realize that it is insane to keep disarming the protectors of our children? Like Israel, we need to change our thinking and our preparedness if we expect to see these events end differently. Our children are dying for our insanity.

Jim Irvine is the Buckeye Firearms Association Chairman, and recipient of the NRA-ILA’s 2011 “Jay M. Littlefield Volunteer of the Year Award” and the CCRKBA’s 2012 “Gun Rights Defender of the Year Award.”

Published in: on December 18, 2012 at 3:34 pm  Leave a Comment  

Guns Save Lives: Robbery Victims Turn Tables on Attackers in Two Separate Incidents

From The Buckeye Firearms Association by Chad D. Baus, December 11, 2012

Three more law-abiding Ohio citizens are alive today thanks to their decision to exercise their Second Amendment and Ohio Constitutional right to bear arms for their defense and security.

First, a concealed handgun license-holder in Lockand, OH (Hamilton Co.) was the victim of an attempted armed robbery at 3:00 p.m. Sunday afternoon.

From WXIX (Fox Cincinnati):

Police say, according to the attempted robbery victim, he was alone and was getting out of his car in an alley when three males came to him and told him to give them everything at gunpoint. The robbery victim, who was on his way into work, did comply with the demands and gave the robbers his wallet. The would be robbers did not know, however, that the man who they were trying to rob was also carrying a gun with a concealed carry permit.

All three attempted robbers were shot with a .40 caliber glock at the 109 North Wayne in Lockland. One of the juveniles was shot in the face, one in the right shoulder, and the adult was hit in the lower left leg. The suspects then fled the scene on foot in different directions, but were later caught a short distance away by Lockland police.

…The three people who were shot were transported to the hospital for non-life threatening injuries in ambulances. They are being held at the hospital. Police say they are looking into charging them with aggravated robbery and possibly felonious assault.

Police say that there are independent witnesses who are cooperating with them and have given statements.

According to to the article, police stated in a press conference on Sunday that “we believe that this is an instance of a subject who was almost about to be the victim of a robbery, he’s a licensed CCW holder, and had a weapon himself.”

Less than 12 hours later, two other crime victims fought back when an armed robber opened fire.

From The Cincinnati News:

Two workers at the Sunoco gas station off Hamilton Avenue in Springfield Township fired their guns after a gunman shot at them during a hold-up just before 12:30 a.m. today, police said.

The suspect, a man in his late teens or early 20s, died at the scene. His name has not been released.

“You have the right to protect yourself,” said Scott Carpenter, 31 of Springfield Township, who gets his coffee at Sunoco every morning. “I know everybody who works in there. They are all great guys. Everybody knows they have guns. That’s why I was surprised someone tried to rob them. It does not make sense. This is not the best neighborhood.”

The Sunoco gas station is back open today. Police said the business has not been robbed before.

Earlier this morning, one of the store’s owners declined comment but told a reporter everyone inside was OK.

Police said they are still reviewing store security surveillance video to see what went down after the gunman walked into the station, pointed a gun at the two workers and demanded cash.

“It was just your normal robbery, ‘give me your money,'” said Sgt. Burt Roberts.

At least until the suspect wound up behind the counter in a confrontation with the men, who pulled out their own guns: a 40-caliber handgun and a shotgun.

They fired “multiple shots” at the suspect during the course of the robbery, Roberts said.

“We’ve been robbed!” one of the workers frantically yelled to a 911 dispatcher, according to a recording of the call. “I’m holding a gun to his head! We shot him. He pulled a gun on us and started shooting, so we shot him….He came at me with the gun. He said ‘go behind the counter and get me the money.'”

The article says whether or not the store clerks have concealed handgun licenses has not yet been made public (it isn’t necessary to have a CHL to carry concealed in one’s own home or one’s own place of business).

Unfortunately, this article contains a disappointing quote from Sgt. Roberts, who said “Typically we don’t advise people do this but that’s what they chose to do,” Roberts said. “Usually we tell people money or candy bars or whatever you sell at your Sunoco aren’t worth dying for. They chose to do otherwise.”

Sadly, Sgt. Roberts seems not to understand that these workers were fighting for their very lives, not for candy bars.  The only chance they might have died over “candy bars or whatever” is if they had followed his advice and come to work unarmed.

A complete list of known incidents involving Ohio CHL-holders defending themselves is available here.

Chad D. Baus is the Buckeye Firearms Association Vice Chairman.

Published in: on December 18, 2012 at 3:27 pm  Leave a Comment  

Did ‘Gun Free’ School Zones Act Cause a 370% Increase in Violent School Deaths?

There has been a 370% increase in the rate of school shooting deaths since the Gun Free School Zones Act was enacted in 1994

From Grass Roots North Carolina, www.grnc.org, December 15, 2012 via ten8.wordpress.com

The first notable school shooting was the University of Texas massacre in 1966. From then until the “Gun-Free Schools Act” was passed in 1994, implemented in 1995, there were 29 more, about 1 per year with 67 people killed, which averages to 2.4 per year. Since “Gun-Free” School Zones Act there have been 87 incidents, 5 incidents per year resulting in 192 killed, bringing the average to 11.3 per year.

That’s a 370% increase in the rate of school shooting deaths since the Gun Free School Zones Act was enacted in 1994.

Compare that with the U.S. homicide rate, which decreased by 14% since the GFSZA was enacted (1950 to 1994 vs. 1995 to 2007).

This begs the question: why is the murder rate going down in overall society where carrying firearms has become more common due to concealed carry laws, yet it has nearly quadrupled on educational property which has a near absolute ban on guns?

Contrary to the common belief of pop culture, actual data leads to the conclusion that the “Gun-Free” School Zones Act is responsible for an increase in the murder of innocents by a multiple of 3.7 times. As always, areas in which victims are disarmed actually attract violent predators.

More Gun Control on the Way

Despite the testimony of actual numbers, it is certain that this tragedy will not be allowed to “go to waste.” Anti-Gun politicians’ calls for more gun control as a solution will soon reach orgiastic heights. The horrors being replayed repeatedly before our eyes are indeed humbling.

How one can do such terrible things to his fellow human beings is beyond understanding. There are those, however; who can and have done such things and sadly, will again.

The solution does NOT lie in disarming society. No matter how noble the idea, civilization will never succeed in disarming the wicked. Disarming those with normal intentions and good will merely removes the final protections society has against wholesale destruction.

Published in: on December 16, 2012 at 12:38 pm  Leave a Comment  

3 CMPD Officers Injured by Intoxicated Motorists

By ELIZABETH THOMAS /  WCNC.com, December 16, 2012

Charges are pending in two overnight crashes where Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police officers were struck by motorists.

Officer Jean Wassenaar and Officer William Reinke were taken to CMC Main with non-life threatening injuries just before midnight on Saturday after a motorist, who police say was intoxicated, failed to heed to emergency lights, striking both officers. Wassenaar and Reinke both suffered severe leg injuries.

Shortly after 2 a.m. on Sunday, Officer Prince Blue was working the scene of the officer-involved crash when a vehicle struck Blue’s patrol car. Officials say Blue was left unconscious in his patrol unit, and was taken to CMC Main for evaluation.

Both accidents took place near the intersection of Independence Boulevard and Eastway Drive.

Authorities say both of the drivers responsible for the officers’ injuries had been drinking.

Published in: on December 16, 2012 at 11:50 am  Leave a Comment  
%d bloggers like this: