Guns Lower Crime

District of Columbia v. Dick Anthony Heller, arguably, one of the most important rulings the High Court will have made in many years.

Briefly, Heller won a lawsuit against DC - claiming his 2nd Amendment rights were being infringed. DC appealed the case to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Reading the transcript of the oral arguments of this case - many people believe the High Court will uphold the lower court's decision - stating the 2nd Amendment is an individual right - and provide a very high standard (not easily met) under which those rights may be denied or restricted.

It would be great news for law abiding citizens and bad news for criminals if the High Court would affirm an individual right to arms - and remove silly "gun control" restrictions that punish those law abiding citizens while helping criminals.

***************UPDATE 6/26/08****************

The long awaited opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States has been released in District of Columbia v. Dick Anthony Heller.

In a 5/4 decision - the High Court affirmed the lower court's decision that the 2nd Amendment refers to an individual right.

Additionally, the decision affirms the right to self defense via handgun. Although this is only the beginning - it's a great victory for law abiding citizens of the United States and a step in the right direction. Read this historic opinion here.

***************What's Next?*****************

Unfortunately, a tremendous amount of litigation will be necessary to reverse years of abusive gun control legislation. Laws that have denied law abiding citizens accross the United States the right to keep and bear arms (including handguns) for self defense. In the words of Barack Obama - "Change is coming." - although the change following Heller is for the better. :)

************Understanding the Heller Decision*****

If you're still a little fuzzy about the Heller decision - consider some of the following thoughts:

The Second Amendment reads:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It's easy to see how one might be confused about what The Founding Fathers regarding the Second Amendment but consider these other statements.

Suppose the Second Amendment had said:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep, purchase and use Gas, shall not be infringed."

Can't do much without gas - can we?

Certainly, you would still have the right to use gas in your lawn mower? Of course you would. What about your boat? Sure! Could you throw gas on cars as they drove down your street? No. The first part of the Second Amendment IS NOT a restriction placed on the second part of the amendment - but rather announces "a purpose" - not all purposes.

Let's try another:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and wear clothes, shall not be infringed."

Can't do too much without clothes either - can we?

Would you still be able to wear clothes that make you look sexy? Sure! Would you be able to wear clothing for the purpose of comfort? Absolutely. Would you have a right to wear clothing that makes you look so sharp that your chances of getting a new job would be increased! Certainly! Maybe a little cammo while hunting? Obviously!

Self-defense with firearms was such a basic, everyday matter for the Founding Fathers - they would have thought it silly to even write it in the Bill of Rights - since it was understood. Do you have a right to breath? Yes. Same goes for the use of firearms to hunt, self-defense, etc.

What is dreadfully confusing is how the four dissenting Justices could get this entirely wrong. Perhaps those four Justices should take a refresher course in Constitutional Law 101 during the Court's recess?

Have you heard about the recent and tragic "mass stabbings" in China? Sometimes school children have been targeted, and other times women and other adults have been the victims.

* Guns are very difficult to obtain in China as they have very strict and silly gun control laws.

* If those helpless victims had been armed, someone would have been able to stop the attackers much more quickly, saving many lives.

* Those people determined to carry out horrible crimes will find a way to do it, regardless of how many guns are in the world. No guns available, they use knives, cleavers, etc. And, if those weren't available, they would certainly choose another murder weapon.

Link to news articles:

Chinese Stabbing News

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled the gun ban in Washington DC was unconstitutional - because the 2nd Amendment asserts an individual right to own firearms - the High Court will now hear this case:

National Rifle Association of America, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. City of Chicago, Illinois, et al.

Currently, the city of Chicago has a gun ban that is similar to the Washington, DC gun ban. The importance of this case is to decide if the SCOTUS ruling in the Heller case will apply to the City of Chicago as well. Essentially, this case will determine whether or not the 2nd Amendment must be recognized in the same way be all states. Without getting too complicated, this is called "incorporation". Let's hope the Court rules that all states must afford it's citizens the individual gun rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment - as was determined in the Heller case.

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-1497.htm

***************************** UPDATE ***********************************

The High Court has heard the oral arguments for this case and I've read the manuscript. My opinion is that the ruling will be favorable for gun owners. Stay tuned, we probably won't be able to read the Opinion of The Court until sometime in June 2010.

June 28, 2010 *************************UPDATE****************************

SCOTUS says the 2nd Amendment applies to the States and Municipalities. This should be the end of those silly gun bans that deny law-abiding citizens the right to own a gun for self-defense.

You can read the official opinion here on the SCOTUS website: SCOTUS Opinion - McDonald vs Chicago

What happens in a society with gun control - restricting law-abiding citizens? A lot of crime and twisted thinking.

This is a true story - it happened in the UK:

A man by the name of Tony Martin shot and killed a man who had broken into his house. It wasn't the first time Tony Martin's home had been broken into. He feared for his life.

Tony Martin received prison time for this offense (shooting a man who broke into his home). He could have been released early on parole, but the parole board said this:

"...he has shown no remorse and would continue to pose a danger to any other burglars."

Folks, that is twisted and that's where gun control - against law-abiding citizens - will take a society.

Don't believe me? For brevity, I've left out many details, but read the article at the link below.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/norfolk/3009769.stm

Any gun control that restricts law-abiding citizens (no criminal record) is worthless and only increases crime.

Often, I'm asked how I feel about "shootings", you know, sometimes we hear about innocent people who are shot and killed.

Yes, my heart goes out to the victims of those shootings. Please don't be naive - please realize that for every shooting, the blood is on the hands of the government AND the shooter.

That's right, the government has taken away the rights of law-abiding citizens to properly defend themselves. Criminals will always have guns (or other weapons) so why does our government turn us into sheep without shepherds?

Police have guns to protect themselves from criminals, why not law-abiding citizens?

Every time I hear about a shooting, I think of a tragedy that could have been prevented if the victim(s) had been properly armed to defend themselves.

Yes, it's true, more guns equals less crime.

When we hear of a drunk driver killing innocent people, do we blame cars? No, we blame the drunk driver. So, why do people blame guns when they hear of a shooting? It's silly, isn't it? Yes.

When I hear of a shooting where the victim was denied his or her right to carry a handgun for self-defense.

In those situations, the blood of the innocent shooting victim is on the hands of the criminal, the government, and the politicians responsible for creating those laws.

Do you know why law enforcement officers carry handguns? For THEIR OWN personal protection.

More guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens will make the world a safer place!

What's very amusing? When you hear people talking about more laws for gun control.

* It's illegal for a U.S. Citizen to sell guns to citizens of Mexico. Why more laws?

* It's illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to purchase a handgun.

* Etc.

* Etc.

* Guns are barely legal in Washington D.C. - yet gun crime is very high there.

* Etc.

* Etc.

* More "gun laws" are not the answer. But you already knew that, didn't you?

Research suggests that violent crime against women is significantly reduced where women actively carry concealed handguns for self defense. It seems that women benefit more from concealed carry gun rights than men. But both benefit substantially.

Restricting law-abiding women from carrying a handgun for the purpose of self-defense is a sexist position. It's generally accepted that most men can overpower most women. Certainly, there are exceptions, but how often to we hear of a man being raped by a violent woman?

How often do we hear about a woman's "right to choose"? I'm wondering why we don't hear more about a woman's right to choose self defense with a handgun (anywhere she happens to be)?

I'm sure you've seen the TV commercials showing a man breaking into a home where a woman has recently set the home alarm. I always cringe when I see the woman run to the phone. I'm thinking: "That woman should run to her gun first, then get on the phone."

Anyway, why would anyone choose the sexist position of gun control? Woman have just as much right to defend themselves as men.

One of the fastest growing groups of people who are obtaining their concealed carry license (in those states that allow them) happen to be women of all ages. That's right, women are becoming licensed to carry a concealed handgun and I admire that.

It's time for women everywhere to stand up to the sexism of gun control and work together to stop the sexist nature of gun control. Guns level the playing field. A woman with a gun is no less powerful than a man with a gun. But, without a gun, men are generally physically stronger.

How dare any lawmaker deny a law-abiding woman the right to carry a gun for self-defense!

It would be logical to assume that any person (man or woman) is a potential rape victim at pretty much any time. However, according to this information - 16 women confront rapists every hour. 99% of those rapists are men. Do you believe any one of those women would be LESS LIKELY to be a rape victim if they were carrying a firearm? If you answer yes, and if those women are law abiding citizens - capable of carrying a firearm - WHY would you seek to prevent them from properly defending themselves? It makes no sense. Do gun control advocates have no compassion for potential victims of violent crime? It's time to STOP using guns as a scapegoat for crime and START allowing law-abiding citizens to properly defend themselves from violent criminals.

It's always refreshing to hear someone from Hollywood who hasn't lost touch with reality.

Angelina Jolie revealed that she keeps guns in her home for defense of herself and her family. She said "If anybody comes into my home and tries to hurt my kids, I've no problem shooting them."

It's very refreshing to see a Hollywood star like Angelina admit to the obvious good that comes from using guns for self-defense.

Unfortunately, we see another act of gun crime, but this time it happened in England. Yep, the same England where guns are barely legal, if at all.

Sadly, a cab driver decided to open fire on people, killing 12 and wounding 25. An armed law-abiding citizen could have easily stopped the cab driver, saving many lives in this situation.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100602/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_shooting

Once again, we see that gun control DOES NOT stop gun crime. Gun control only succeeds in disarming law-abiding citizens, making them helpless targets for criminals and lunatics like this cab driver. We also see that making guns illegal DOES NOT keep guns out of the hands of killers. My desire is for people all over the world to learn from this tragedy!

Gun control didn't stop:

* Timothy McVeigh from bombing the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City - killing 168 people.

* The terrorists from using box openers to hijack the airplanes used in the attacks on the World Trade Center.

* All the other crimes committed by those other than law-abiding citizens. Isn't it time we accept the truth - that gun control doesn't do anything but cause more crime? Isn't it time we put more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens who can actually stop a crime, before they're a victim of crime?

Why would anyone believe that gun control would lower crime? Those intent on doing harm to others will ALWAYS find a way.

People use knives, bombs, cars, rocks, fists, rope, and anything else they desire to carry out their evil.

Why blame guns? It's all about politics. :)

Do guns make committing crimes easier? No! For every shooting, there are A LOT more stabbings, beatings, and other forms of crime.

The truth? There has been a war against guns in the USA for many years. That war has been fought by blaming guns, rather than blaming criminals. And we, law-abiding citizens, have been paying the price.

Guns don't CAUSE crime any more than our underwear. That reminds me, check out the cool underwear holster in the picture.

When a drunk driver kills someone with a car, do we blame the car? No.

When woman intentionally runs over her husband with a car, do we blame the car? No.

Do some research, you might be surprised to see how often an automobile is used to intentionally harm another person. I suggest a Google search. :)

What do you think? Why do "car crimes" focus on the DRIVER, while "gun crimes" focus on the GUN?

Contrary to popular belief - not all liberals are anti gun fanatics. In spite of what liberal political leadership would like for the world to believe - there is a very special group of people who believe the right to carry guns - for self defense - is very important.

This group of people has been the target of hate crime for many years. Who are these people? They are known as the Pink Pistols and they take guns and self defense seriously! Be sure to read about them.

If you're a liberal, you aren't required to hate guns. Just make sure your representatives understands the importance of your right to carry a gun for self-defense.

I'm hoping for the day when Nancy Pelosi stands up and says: "All law-abiding citizens should carry guns for self-defense, not just my special security detail." :)

I know MANY old timers who are Democrats, but won't vote at all because of the Democrat's war against guns.

It's been my experience that most law enforcement officers are in favor of concealed carry by law-abiding citizens. To quote one: "another good guy with a gun - is a good thing".

I've also noticed that law enforcement officers who are closer to the top (i.e. more political) are less in favor of concealed carry. I find that very interesting, don't you?

Although you can find all sorts of law enforcement officers with varying opinions, my conclusion is that the majority of them are in favor of it.

Sure! Do you carry your concealed handgun to church? In some states (like Texas), it's against the law to carry a concealed handgun in a church service.

This is quite confusing as Texas has many quality gun rights laws. Unfortunately, by not allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns in a church service - Texas is demonstrating they don't understand the real world threats facing law-abiding citizens. Texas is also demonstrating their lack of wisdom regarding crime. Where guns are completely banned, who will follow the law? The law-abiding citizens. It's too easy for a psychopath or a violent criminal to walk into a church building and slaughter helpless people. Texas needs to wake up!

I'm sure you've heard of many "church shootings" - I have. Why would you ever want a law that creates more helpless sheep? Church services, schools, college campuses, etc. are places where we need more law-abiding citizens to carry guns, not less guns.

Here's the good news for law abiding citizens (bad news for criminals):

* 35 States have "shall issue" concealed carry laws - where a "qualified individual" may obtain a permit to lawfully carry a handgun for self defense.

* Where concealed handguns are legally carried - violent crime is reduced.

Here's the bad news for law abiding citizens (good news for criminals):

* 15 States continue to deny law abiding citizens the right to properly defend themselves against violent crime.

* Many of the States allowing concealed carry continue to deny those with gun permits the right to protect themselves in certain places where violent crimes occur (college campuses, malls, etc.).

* Many people are misguided by idealistic politicians - who continue to oppose the war against crime - attacking our right to carry handguns.

Who are the Second Amendment Sisters? From their website: "Second Amendment Sisters, Inc. is a women's advocacy group dedicated to preserving the basic human right to self-defense, as recognized by the Second Amendment."

The group was founded in 1999 by a group of five women who did not want the "Million Mom March" speaking for them. If you're a woman and you're interested in joining with other women seeking to preserve your Second Amendment Rights - check out the Second Amendment Sisters.

The police are not legally obligated to protect you? It's true.

* Reference: Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

In this case three rape victims sued the city and its police department under the following facts: Two of the victims were upstairs when they heard the other being attacked by men who had broken in downstairs.

Half an hour having passed and their roommate's screams having ceased, they assumed the police must have arrived in response to their repeated phone calls. In fact their calls had somehow been lost in the shuffle while the roommate was being beaten into silent acquiescence.

So when the roommates went downstairs to see to her, as the court's opinion graphically describes it, "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands" of their attackers.

In this case, the courts ruled that the police have no legal duty or obligation to protect the victims and the District of Columbia won the lawsuit.

Courts have ruled this way consistently, although not many people even realize it.

Source = http://www.mcrkba.org/w19.html

Guns, if they're so dangerous, why are police allowed to carry them? Think about it. Some people LOVE to talk about "those dangerous guns", but the very people who are supposed to be looking out for us (law-enforcement) carry those "dangerous guns" everywhere they go.

Think about it......

It's not the gun that's dangerous. More guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens is a VERY GOOD THING.

Get your gun first! I've always been amused by those commercials where you see a helpless woman running to answer the phone when some idiotic criminal is breaking into her home. DO YOU REALLY THINK a criminal will turn and flee from you simply because you're seen answering the phone and talking to a home security company?

This month (December 2009) my Uncle experienced an attempted home invasion. Some idiot was trying to bust his front door down - and in broad daylight. Smartly, he ran to get his gun, then called the police. This time, the criminal wasn't able to break into his home - so he wasn't forced to shoot the bad guy.

Get your gun first, then get the phone!

Source = http://www.lizmichael.com/racistgc.htm

Before the Civil War ended, State "Slave Codes" prohibited slaves from owning guns. After President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and after the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery was adopted and the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under laws renamed "Black Codes." They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites. This view was specifically articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in its infamous 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford to uphold slavery. Continue Reading

Can you believe it? The Los Angeles Times has published a fantastic article about the legal, "open carry" of handguns by law abiding citizens.

Furthermore, it seems the article is not politically motivated. It's a must read for anyone interested in learning about law abiding citizens carrying handguns for self defense.

Source = http://www.alphadogweb.com/firearms/Diane_Feinstein.htm

Her Thoughts?

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."

--U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein Associated Press 11/18/93

The Truth:

Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) on terrorism and self-defense:

The following comments were made by U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) during U.S. Senate hearings on terrorism held in Washington, D.C. on April 27, 1995:

"Because less than twenty years ago I was the target of a terrorist group. It was the New World Liberation Front. They blew up power stations and put a bomb at my home when my husband was dying of cancer. And the bomb didn't detonate. ... I was very lucky. But, I thought of what might have happened. Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home."

"And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me."

[During her comments at this hearing Sen. Feinstein made no disavowal of carrying a concealed weapon or of people arming themselves as she has done (and presumably still does) in California.]

Please note that in almost all California cities it is nearly impossible for a citizen to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon. In fact, the City of Los Angeles did not issue a single permit for over six years with the exception of issuing one to a new police chief who was not yet certified in California. In San Francisco only those who are police or have influence with the police department are issued permits. In the city of San Jose (in Silicon Valley) the previous police chief refused to issue any permits at all, no matter how endangered a citizen was.

Source: GOA Video of CSPAN Coverage 04/27/95.

Source = http://blog.riflegear.com/articles/the-hypocrisy-of-sylvester-stallone.asp

Sylvester Stallone is a long time supporter of gun control. Here's what he said on March 28, 1998:

"until America, door to door, takes every handgun, this is what you're gonna have... It really is pathetic... We're livin' in the Dark Ages over there."

However, it was later discovered that Stallone had applied for and received a permit to carry a loaded, concealed handgun for self defense. Read all about it.

Have you ever wondered WHY certain politicians are enthusiastic advocates of gun control? In spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary - gun control DOES NOT reduce violent crime in any manner. You need not look any further than Washington D.C. to see high rates of violent crime flourishing in an environment of very strict gun control.

Why would politicians continue to blame guns under these circumstances? Washington D.C. is great example of the political failure to reduce crime by blaming guns. With violent crime as high as anywhere else in the United States - the political leadership of Washington D.C. has failed. Perhaps if that political leadership is able to continue blaming guns for violent crime - they'll continue to avoid fighting the complex socio-economic issues that cultivate crime and avoid the public scrutiny of their failures.

It's not uncommon for politicians to play this type of game. If crime is high - blame guns - it can't be because the politicians are failures - can it?

Unfortunately, this is one of the greatest deceptions anti-gun politicians and media have released on ordinary people. Not only is it unfortunate that law-abiding citizens are rendered defenseless against violent crime - it also prevents the REAL causes of crime from being addressed. It would be helpful for political leadership across the United States to focus their energy on reducing crime - opposed to playing the "blame game" with guns.

Do you believe everyone in the United States should have a right to defend himself or herself? I do.

The legal defense of "self defense" is regularly held up in courts accross the United States.

Since criminals will always have guns (whether they are banned or not - like drugs) - why shouldn't law abiding citizens have the right to properly defend themselves? I believe we should.

After all, law abiding citizens aren't committing crimes - criminals are. I'm not sure why this is even a debate?

How many law enforcement officers do you believe would go to work without a handgun for self defense? Not many. How often are law enforcement officers the victim of random acts of violent crime? Almost never. Why? Because they're armed. Criminals like easy (unarmed) targets.

utopia. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved May 31, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/utopia

U·to·pi·a Audio Help /yu%u02C8to%u028Api%u0259/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[yoo-toh-pee-uh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun 1. an imaginary island described in Sir Thomas More's Utopia (1516) as enjoying perfection in law, politics, etc.

2. an ideal place or state.

3. any visionary system of political or social perfection.

The only place gun control could ever be affective is in Utopia. However, the irony is that Utopia would need no gun control.

Unfortunately, Utopia does not exist - we live in a real world with real dangers where real criminals seek to harm innocent people. If you're not interested in being a helpless victim - carry a concealed handgun (legally) - less chance of being a helpless victim.

Even if the 2nd Amendment did not exist - criminals would have guns.

* Does anyone want criminals to have guns? No, certainly not!

* If you think we can legislate guns out of the hands of criminals - think about the war against illicit drugs:

1) These drugs are illegal - yet we continue to see them kill our children and ruin the lives of our citizens. They're everywhere - yet they're illegal - how would guns be any different?

2) Regardless of ANY laws - criminals will continue to acquire guns. Guns can be easily made. If a gun isn't available - a knife or club might be used.

* June 8th, 2008 - a man in Japan goes on a "stabbing spree" in downtown Tokyo. Sure, people will continue to kill other unarmed (innocent) people - guns or no guns.

3) More gun control laws will only remove guns from the hands of law abiding citizens - those people who should be carrying guns for self defense.

In spite of strict gun control laws - Britain and Australia have more violent crime than the U.S.

It is true that crime in the UK is different than in the United States. However, gun control has very little to do with crime rates in the United States vs crime rates in the UK.

If you're interested in learning something new - read this article about guns and crime in the UK vs US.

Additionally, for many years the government in the UK has actively brainwashed it's citizens to believe guns = higher crime rates. Therefore, it would be wise for these citizens to look at objective studies well outside the realm of the UK.

Why do people like to blame criminal behavior on guns and not on criminals?

Why do people naively assume that less guns will result in less criminal behavior?

What has happened to personal responsibility?

Why are guns equated to violence?

Guns don't equal violence any more than fire equals violence. Guns can be used as a tool for self-defense or they can be used by criminals in violent crimes. Just as fire can be used for heat (life) or destructive purposes.

Did you know the United Nations (UN) would like to prohibit all civilian ownership of firearms? Why?

The UN should only provide humanitarian and disaster relief. They should keep their nose out of everything else.

Did you know the militia system in Switzerland requires all males ages 20 to 42 keep a semi-automatic rifle and/or pistol in their home? There are more firearms per capita in Switzerland than any other country in the world.

Crime rates in Switzerland are some of the lowest in the world!

Even Forrest Gump could figure this one out - guns don't equal violent crime.

Source = http://www.fightthebias.com/Media/paul_harvey_on_guns.htm

Are you considering backing gun control laws? Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don't matter?

CONSIDER:

In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. The results Australia-wide; Homicides are up 3.2%; Assaults are up 8%; Armed robberies are up 44%; In that country's state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%.

Over the previous 25 years, figures show a steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns."

It's time to state it plainly; Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens.

Take action before it's too late, write or call your representatives.

Source = http://www.fightthebias.com/Media/paul_harvey_on_guns.htm

How can we blame it all on guns?

For the life of me, I can't understand what could have gone wrong in Littleton, CO. If only the parents had kept their children away from the guns, we wouldn't have had such a tragedy. Yeah, it must have been the guns.

It couldn't have been because half our children are being raised in broken homes.

It couldn't have been because our children get to spend an average of 30 seconds in meaningful conversation with their parents each day. After all, we give our children quality time.

It couldn't have been because we treat our children as pets and our pets as children.

It couldn't have been because we place our children in day care centers where they learn their socialization skills among their peers under the law of the jungle while employees who have no vested interest in the children look on and make sure that no blood is spilled.

It couldn't have been because we allow our children to watch, on the average, seven hours of television a day filled with the glorification of sex and violence that isn't fit for adult consumption.

It couldn't have been because we allow our children to enter into virtual worlds in which, to win the game, one must kill as many opponents as possible in the most sadistic way possible.

It couldn't have been because we have sterilized and contracepted our families down to sizes so small that the children we do have are so spoiled with material things that they come to equate the receiving of the material with love.

It couldn't have been because our children, who historically have been seen as a blessing from God, are now being viewed as either a mistake created when contraception fails or inconveniences that parents try to raise in their spare time.

It couldn't have been because we give two-year prison sentences to teenagers who kill their newborns.

It couldn't have been because our school systems teach the children that they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolved out of some primordial soup of mud by teaching evolution as fact and by handing out condoms as if they were candy.

It couldn't have been because we teach our children that there are no laws of morality that transcend us, that everything is relative and that actions don't have consequences. What the heck, the president gets away with it.

Nah, it must have been the guns.

Paul Harvey

Source = http://www.kxmb.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=196038#CommentStart

In the past six years - the number of "Michigander's" choosing to legally carry guns has increased by six times. However, during those six years, crime has decreased substantially. Why is this important? Because the "doom and gloom" of more guns in hands of law abiding citizens - predicted by liberal politicians has not come true.

Source = http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070701_238_A1_hTeny75637

A little over 10 years ago (around 1997) - the State of Oklahoma passed a law allowing law abiding citizens to obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun for self defense.

About ten years later, State Officials say the Oklahoma Self Defense Act has been saving lives and deterring crime. This makes complete sense to those with common sense. Why? Because law abiding citizens legally armed with handguns don't commit crimes - criminals do. Criminals can't get permits to legally carry handguns but they do it anyway. It's what people with common sense call a "no brainer". :)

Source = http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba324/ba324.html

In 1995, Texas began allowing law abiding citizens to obtain concealed handgun permits and carry guns for self defense. This part of the article tells it all:

"Both John B. Holmes, Harris County district attorney, and Glenn White, president of the Dallas Police Association, initially opposed concealed carry in Texas but have subsequently embraced it. Holmes said, "I . . . [felt] that such legislation . . . present[ed] a clear and present danger to law-abiding citizens by placing more handguns on our streets. Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris County, and indeed statewide, has proven my initial fears absolutely groundless." And White said, "All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen. . . . I think it's worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I'm a convert." The evidence indicates that concealed carry is a vital tool in the fight against violent crime."

Source: http://www.kc3.com/CCDW_Stats/fla_model.htm

Florida began allowing the concealed carry of handguns - for individuals qualifying to obtain a permit - in 1987. Since that time, crime has been declining in Florida. Additionally, those individuals with concealed carry permits are not the people who are involved in gun crimes. Concealed carry in Florida has been a huge success.

Source = http://mchenry.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=37608

A little over 10 years ago, the State of North Carolina began issuing concealed carry permits to qualified, law abiding citizens. Since that time over 140,000 permits have been issued and the results are clear. According to the FBI - those states offering concealed handgun lincenses have lower crime rates than those states that don't. Hat's off to North Carolina!

Do you live in Virginia? If you do and you're looking to join an awesome organization - actively seeking to take back your gun rights - you should join the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. - VCDL.

This is an excerpt from Wikipedia about gun laws in Virginia:

"Open carry of a handgun without a permit is legal in Virginia at age 18, withstanding other applicable laws. Concealed carry of a handgun is prohibited except for persons who hold a valid Concealed Handgun Permit (CHP), comply with certain restrictions, or who hold certain positions. Virginia shall issue a CHP to applicants over 21 years of age, provided that they meet certain safety training requirements and do not have any disqualifying criminal convictions. A person may not lawfully consume alcohol while carrying a concealed handgun onto the premises of a restaurant or club licensed to sell alcohol for on-premises consumption."

Have you heard of a home invasion? If not, a home invasion is where a group of criminals enter your home (when you're home) - often with the intention of harming the occupants of the home and stealing, etc.

June 17, 2008: Source = http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=b58857dc-7251-4560-b8a8-c87250b7b328

Near Toronto, Canada - a young woman and her boyfriend were home when two strange men broke into their home. One of the men was carrying a machete - attacked the young woman - and cut off two of her fingers. Sure, tough gun control laws lower violent crime???

Unfortunately, some people naively believe countries with strict gun control laws have lower violent crime as a result. This is contrary to the facts and is nothing more than a case of "believing what you want to hear".

Did you know that in Jamaica - violent crime is very high and gun control laws are very strict?

Are you aware that in Israel - violent crime is very low and the citizens of Israel are ENCOURAGED to own firearms?

While performing a comparative analysis - be cautious of your conclusions. Comparing apples to oranges can make you look silly. :)

Do you believe that police officers should be allowed to carry guns?

Surely you do!

Did you know that police officers PRIMARILY carry guns for their own personal defense?

They are under NO obligation to rescue you!

Are you aware that police officers undergo a licensing process and training similar to law abiding citizens having a license to carry a concealed handgun?

So what's the big deal?

Why should police officers and criminals be the people who carry guns while law abiding citizens are left defenseless?

Law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry guns if they desire and if they can qualify.

Very good gun quotes: Source - http://www.sightm1911.com/Care/Gun_Quotes.htm

Mohandas K. Gandhi: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn." Mohandas K. Gandhi, Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, Chapter XXVII, Recruiting Campaign, Page 403, Dover paperback edition, 1983.

Admiral Yamamoto: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." Advising Japan's military leaders of the futility of an invasion of the mainland United States because of the widespread availability of guns. It has been theorized that this was a major contributing factor in Japan's decision not to land on North America early in the war when they had vastly superior military strength. This delay gave our industrial infrastructure time to gear up for the conflict and was decisive in our later victory.

Adolf Hitler: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens.

John F. Kennedy: "Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."

The Dalai Lama: "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

James Earl Jones: "The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose."

Sigmund Freud: "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." ("General Introduction to Psychoanalysis," S. Freud)

A few states have actually legalized "open carry" of handguns for self defense. "Open carry" is just what is sounds like - that is - you may openly (in plain view) carry a handgun (sort of like a law enforcement officer) for self defense.

About 23 states have some type of "open carry" provision for those folks choosing to defend themselves - should the need arise.

This story is unfortunate but true. A man kills 5 people with an ax. It happened in Europe where gun control is strict and - of course - murders still happen.

This is another classic example of people killing other people - guns or no guns. Would this man have used a gun if he didn't have an ax? Probably, but as you can see - not having a gun certainly didn't stop him either.

Unfortunately, another life is ended when a young actor - who played a role in a Harry Potter film - is stabbed to death in London.

I'm wondering where the "knife control" people are? Everyone knows that weapons (guns and knives) kill and not people...right?

So, why is "gun control" so strict - while knives are being used to kill people?

Wait, I have an idea - if all knives were outlawed - there would be no more violent crime? Right????

Gun control - criminals love it!

***************************************

******UPDATE*********** May 31, 2008

Those crafty folks in the UK have found the solution to eliminating viloent crime! Now they are banning the sale of knives (or razors) (I knew it was coming) to anyone under the age of 18.

Of course, there will be no more violent crime in the UK. Right??????????

I wonder why someone didn't think of this before now??????????

What the folks in the UK don't seem to understand is that by demonizing guns and knives - they've failed to teach the younger generation about personal responsibility. After all, the knife committed the crime, not me, right? The gun killed that person, not me, right?

Don't you believe it's time to start addressing the true causes of violent crime and stop the political scapegoating by blaming knives and guns? I do!

Who do you believe will carry a gun where this sign is posted?

Criminals with guns!

Who won't carry a gun where this sign is posted?

That's right, law abiding citizens with concealed carry handgun permits!

This concept is so simple you would think more people would understand. Unfortunately, some gun control advocates are "brainwashed" to the point they can't think for themselves.

What has happened to personal responsibility?

Why are guns blamed for crime while criminals are coddled?

Why are law abiding citizens not allowed to defend themselves?

Why do criminals and law enforcement officers carry guns for self-defense while law abiding citizens are not?

Often, I'm asked why I would carry a handgun for self defense - rather than a taser or pepper spray. My response is that I believe tasers and pepper spray are good self defense tools. However, if you're attacked by a criminal or possibly more than one criminal - a handgun will be best. When my life might depend on it - I'll choose to carry the best tool available for self defense. That tool is a handgun. Having said that, if you're completely opposed to carrying a handgun - please carry some pepper spray. Don't be a victim - take some responsibility for your own self defense.

Washington D.C. - with perhaps the most restrictive gun control laws in the United States - also has one of the highest rates of violent crime in the United States. Another example of gun control failure.

Perhaps the most interesting argument made by gun control people about gun crime in DC is this:

There are a few states around DC where gun control laws are much less restrictive than DC laws. Gun control folks like to blame DC gun violence on these states - saying gun crime in DC is caused by loose gun control laws in those states. However, if high crime rates in DC were the result of "loose" gun control in other states - why is crime in those "loose" gun control states much lower than in DC? Nobody ever seems to have an intelligent answer.....

********Update*********** 10/3/2009

The recent SCOTUS decision in the Heller Case forced DC to allow ownership of guns, but gun laws are still very strict in DC.

Would you like to know what grade your local representative received regarding his/her support/denial of your right to defend yourself?

You'll find gun grades ranging from A+ to F-. Obviously, better grades indicate support for your 2nd Amendment rights - while lower grades = lack of support for your 2nd Amendment rights.

Where does Barack Obama stand on guns? Well, it's hard to say - it seems it depends on who he's talking to.

Source: http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm#Gun_Control

Here are a few facts about Obama and guns:

* Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)

* "Concealed carry OK for retired police officers." (Aug 2007). I suppose he feels that law abiding citizens who are trained and licensed are not to be trusted with firearms?

* Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)

* Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008). This is like saying freedom of speach is Constitutional but we reserve the right to require you to keep your mouth shut at all times - if we desire.

How does John McCain feel about guns and the 2nd Amendment?

Source: http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/john_mccain_gun_control.htm

* "I know how to use guns; but I don't own one."

* "We have a responsibility to ensure that criminals who violate the law are prosecuted to the fullest, rather than restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime. Law abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals--criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway."

* Voted against Brady Bill & assault weapon ban.

Where does Sarah Palin stand on guns, gun control and the 2nd Amendment?

* Shot her first rabbit at age 10; freezer filled with game.
* Hunts and fishes, as did her father.
* Hunts as much as she can; freezer-full of wild game.
* Supported ending D.C.'s 32-year-old ban on handguns.
* Lifelong NRA member & champion of right to bear arms.
* Supports Constitutional right to bear arms.

Source: http://www.ontheissues.org/sarah_palin.htm#Gun_Control

Do you know the gun grade of a politician before you vote for him/her? The GOA (Gun Owners of America) issues grades to most politicians - based on how they've voted on past gun legislation. Before you vote, be sure to check out your candidates gun grades. You can find those grades right here from GOA: Gun Grades for Politicians

Seems to me you can understand a politician in many ways - simply by looking at his/her gun grades. For example, the 2nd Amendment guarantees Americans the "right to keep and bear arms" and this has been upheld by the Constitution. However, some politicians such as Daley (soon to be former mayor of Chicago) has laughed in the face of the SCOTUS and implemented outrageous anti-gun laws in Chicago - even after the SCOTUS overturned the Chicago gun ban. Politicians like him care little about rights of the people and more about political power. It's true, think about it. :-)

In this article - Seth Godin explains the threat of "superstitious beliefs" - particularly when data isn't available to support those beliefs. Seth explains that a pigeon becomes superstitious - assuming a cause-and-effect relationship - when no such relationship exists.

You'll find many pigeons who believe gun control is a good thing. Why? When there is so much evidence to the contrary:

Will gun control make us safe? Debunking the myths. Gary A. Mauser, 2001

___________________________________________________

FIREARMS AND VIOLENCE
A CRITICAL REVIEW

Committee to Improve Research Information and Data on Firearms

Charles F. Wellford, John V. Pepper, and Carol V. Petrie, editors

Committee on Law and Justice

Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.

If you're interested in learning more about concealed carry of handguns for your personal self defense you need to think about a few things:

1) Learn about the laws of the State in which you reside. This concealed carry map is a good place to start - but you should verify any information you find there with your State government. You can probably do a search on Google for "concealed carry YOUR STATE" and find a government website.

2) Most states have laws that fall into one of three categories: a) "Shall issue" states are required to issue a concealed carry license to you IF you can qualify (background check, training, etc.) b) "May issue" states will only issue a concealed carry permit to you if the "authority" decides you "need" a license and c) states that allow no type of concealed carry of handguns at all.

3) You need to determine if you are the type of person who would like to defend yourself - should the need arise. Remember, carrying a concealed handgun isn't like a Hollywood movie. It's a big responsibility that should be taken very seriously.

4) You'll need a good self defense handgun. There are more makes and models of handguns than you could possibly imagine. There are also more internet sources regarding this subject than you can possibly imagine. It might be best if you could visit with someone you know to be a responsible and trustworty gun owner / concealed carry permit holder to help guide you along. Also, there are many handgun training courses you might consider. The NRA (National Rifle Association) holds training courses accross the United States. Most towns have gun clubs as well.

States that issue concealed carry permits usually fall into one of two categories.

Category 1) "Shall Issue" states are those where state law defines a set of criteria an applicant must pass in order to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun. If a person applies for a license and passes the established criteria - the state "shall issue" the license - by state law it is required.

Category 2) "May Issue" states are those where state law allows the concealed carry of handguns - however, the applicant may be denied a permit for almost any reason. "May issue" states are those where you often hear about "a friend of the sheriff" receiving a permit but an ordinary law abiding citizen being declined a permit. Most states are moving toward "shall issue" permits.