Conservative Daily News -- In the wake of the tragic mass murder in Aurora, Colorado, some on the political left have used the occasion to further their assault on citizens’ Constitutional right to bear arms. The charge is being led by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who apparently believes that a disarmed populace is a safe populace.
But safe from whom?
The right to defend oneself and one’s property is inalienable and indisputable. However, the left is taking pot shots at Americans’ gun rights by claiming that gun control or even outright bans are necessary for our own safety.
But an article written by Tracy W. Price and published in the Washington Times puts that myth to bed.
"Anti-gun nonsense" lures the reader in before laying the hammer down. The first myth it dispels is that high-visibility, highly sensationalistic mass murder sprees used to justify gun control laws are less likely to happen in “gun free,” or as the author puts it, “defenseless” zones.
That’s right before he points out the following, which is well beyond statistical naysaying:
In fact, research by economist and author John Lott and Bill Landes shows that states that allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns enjoy a 60 percent decrease in multiple-victim public shootings and a 78 percent decrease in victims per attack.[...]
The decrease in murder and robbery in states with shall-issue laws, even after controlling statistically for every other cause of crime reduction, is real and significant. Of the many scholars who were given Lott’s data and did their own analyses, most agree with his conclusions. States that passed these laws experienced sharp drops in murder, rape, robbery, and assault, even after allowing for the effects of poverty, unemployment, police arrest rates, and the like. States that did not pass these laws did not show comparable declines.[...]
Such overwhelmingly clear and positive evidence will not deter big government types like Michael Bloomberg from making the argument that Americans do not have the right to defend themselves (from other citizens or from the state). But the case for eliminating gun control laws is mounting and the counter-arguments are appearing increasingly spurious or trivial.
Not only is the right to bear arms morally just, but it is also statistically proven that citizens who lawfully carry firearms are safer from other citizens and from their own government.
Now who exactly would be against that?
Blog author's comments - I would think by now everyone knows this tragedy took place at a midnight premier of the latest 'Batman' movie. I believe that if someone is of the mind to do what James Holmes did, and is intelligent enough to plan well, tragedies like this shooting cannot be stopped. Even if the Second Amendment was removed from our Constitution
The liberal anti-gun crowd will continue to chip away at the Second Amendment rights of the law abiding American citizens. They use these tragedies to attempt to push their mindset on us. This is only one of the many reasons I feel Barack Obama must be defeated in November.
He will no doubt be able to appoint at least one and probably two liberal Justices to the Supreme Court much like his other two appointments, if he wins a second term. If this happens the liberal Supreme Court Justices could rewrite the Constitution beginning with the Second Amendment and take away our right to defend ourselves. The crime rate would rise dramatically.
Concealed carry permits help to protect us. Most criminals are carrying their guns illegally and could not pass the extensive background check to obtain a concealed carry permit. Also, most of the crime is done by people who did not purchase their guns from a gun shop and pass that background check.
In this case the shooter had no police record aside from a traffic ticket. So...there were no warning signs. James Holmes was from what I have read an intelligent person and good student until the last few months before he committed this horrendous crime. What prompted him to do this? We may never know.
Most if not all of the mass killings take place in areas which are 'gun free zones'. The shooters know that the likelihood of encountering armed citizens is remote.
Graphics by Bob Englehart and Scott Stantis