Gun control laws cost lives

“Things in our country run in spite of government, not by aid of it.” — Will Rogers

Down in Concord, the big news last month, i.e. February 12, was the defeat of yet another gun control bill. The NH House killed HB 1589 by the overwhelming vote of 242 – 118. The battle is over, but could always reappear.

How would you have voted? Do you think we should require a background check for every gun buyer except for criminals? Okay, that isn’t exactly what the bill said but that would have been its effect. Common sense tells you that criminals would not have obeyed this new law any more than they obey existing laws.

Some months ago I came upon some people holding signs for “universal background checks”. I asked one of them, “How are you going to get the criminals to submit to a check?” His answer was, “We probably won’t. So what?” His side apparently wants to do background checks on all the law-abiding people who would pass a background check, but not do checks on any of the criminals who would fail a check.

Supporters admit that the bill would have had no affect on criminals, and they admitted at a hearing that it would not have stopped the Newtown tragedy or any of the other terrible shootings. But what if the bill could save just one life? Sadly, all such bills are more likely to cost a life than save a life.

One simple fact that the gun controllers don’t understand is that guns are used in America far more to STOP crime than to cause crime.  A wheel-chair bound grandfather uses his gun to stop an armed robbery in a restaurant. A mother saves herself and her two kids by shooting a home invader. There are hundreds of thousands, even millions, of episodes every year where a law-abiding citizen stops a crime, usually without even firing a shot.

Gun haters often say that guns are designed for one thing – to kill people. But that is nonsense. By most estimates, there are about 300 million guns in America. 299.99 million of those guns never killed anyone. Did they not work as designed? Or could it be that their owners never had any intentions of killing anyone?

No, guns are not designed to kill people. They are designed to DEFEND against people who would kill or rob or rape others. Throughout history there have been thugs who used knives, baseball bats, or simply their fists to victimize the weaker, the aged, the infirm, the women. Very few of us are martial-arts experts able to defend ourselves without a weapon. Firearms make it possible for a little old woman to defend herself against a big strong man.

The fastest-growing group of gun owners is women. They are buying guns to defend themselves and their families. Many are carrying their guns concealed. That gives thugs something to think about. Criminals are lazy; they go where the pickings are easy. If they think a woman might be carrying a gun, they will go looking for easier prey.

There is a photo going ’round the web of a woman shooting an assault rifle. The caption says, “You are not for women’s rights when you want to strip them of their right of self-defense.”

The right of self-defense is the most fundamental of all rights. Every living creature has the right of self-defense – not just defend self, but defend family and community. Just picture a mother bear defending her cubs. A bear has natural built-in weapons but a human mother needs artificial weapons to defend her children.

For self-defense, a firearm is the most useful tool yet invented. Just showing a gun can scare a criminal away. Nothing else can do that, not a Taser, not pepper spray, not a knife, definitely not calling 911. If a criminal continues to threaten, a gun can stop him before he can hurt or kill the victim. Virtually every would-be victim is capable of using a gun. It does not require special strength, agility, or training.

Guns have been called the great equalizer because even the weak, infirm, or untrained can be the equal of the criminal. Without guns the weak are at the mercy of the strong, the ordinary person at the mercy of an attacker who is well trained in fighting or knife work.

In his excellent “Opinion on Gun Control”, Larry Correia reports that “The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5.” Armed civilians save lives. The other side tries to dispute that fact by defining mass shootings as only those shootings in which 4 or more people are killed. They throw away the shootings that would have killed dozens or even hundreds but an armed citizen stopped the criminal early.

The many gun control laws have no effect on the criminals. But for law-abiding citizens, these laws cost time and money. In effect, they tilt the balance in favor of the criminal. One or two victims won’t have guns. That is why these misguided laws are more likely to COST lives than save lives.

Mom brandishes gun to protect family

When a would-be home invader tried to kick in her door at 5 am, Betty Collins grabbed her .357 revolver, went to the door, and ordered the attacker to leave. When he saw her gun, he laid down and waited for the police.

Four months later, another criminal tried to steal a bike from her front porch. Once again, she brought out her gun, and subdued the man until the police arrived.

These events are almost so common as to be not worth reporting. The story made the paper probably because it was a woman brandishing the gun, and it happened twice just four months apart.

This kind of thing happens more than a million times each year. A law abiding citizen displays a gun, doesn’t even try to shoot it, but scares away the criminal or forces him to surrender to the police.

Those who say that guns are designed for one thing, killing people, simply do not know that guns are used far, far more often to defend the good guys against the bad guys who would harm them.

Why didn’t this make the news?

A man shoots and kills a teenager, claims self-defense, gets acquitted. The victim’s family claim that he was a good kid. The shooter says the kid charged at him yelling that he would get the shooter. The jury believed that it was legitimate self-defense. Why did that story not make the news?

You say that the Trayvon Martin story was all over the news. How could I have missed it?

No, I’m talking about a black man lawfully carrying a pistol, killing a white teenager in self-defense, and being acquitted by the jury.

The media was all over a story that they thought was about a white man killing a black kid in self-defense, but totally ignores a very similar story about a black man killing a white kid in self-defense.

Down in Concord

“Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you.” — Pericles (430 B.C.)

Down in Concord it is another quiet week. There are 47 bills with public hearings in the House or in the Senate. Most probably are not interesting to most people. I found four that are mildly interesting.

On Tuesday morning, the Senate has public hearings on two firearms bills. HB 135 restricts your right to defend yourself, your family, and your community. It says that if someone attacks you with deadly force, you may not use deadly force to defend yourself, if you can run away. So if you or your daughter is a young nurse walking through a dark parking lot, and a would-be rapist pulls out a knife, you should try to run away instead of pulling out your pistol. I expect a large crowd to oppose the bill.

The second firearms bill is HB 388, which says that if a thief steals a weapon from your house, you are not responsible for any damage the bad guy does with your weapon. That bill passed with a strong bipartisan vote in the House. The crowd on hand to oppose HB 135 probably will stay to support HB 388

Wednesday the Senate hears HB 595, which would repeal changes to photo identification requirements of voters that was passed just last year. By wide margins, voters approve of the requirement for a photo ID, so there might be a good crowd opposing this repeal bill.

Thursday the House Fish&Game committee will hold a public hearing on SB 122, establishing a commercial shrimp license. We have survived all these many years without needing a shrimp license. Thursday we will learn why some people think we really need yet another license.

…..

Some time ago a friend asked why I spend time on politics. Well, the fact is that politicians can have an enormous impact on our well-being. It’s not so much that they can do good but that they can do great harm. As Walter Williams puts it, “In general, presidents and congressmen have very limited power to do good for the economy and awesome power to do bad. The best good thing that politicians can do for the economy is to stop doing bad. In part, this can be achieved through reducing taxes and economic regulation, and staying out of our lives.”

A report from the government’s Small Business Administration estimates that the cost of federal regulations is $1.75 trillion. That works out to about $15,000 per family. Are you getting your money’s worth?

It wasn’t regulations that made us the greatest country on earth. It was freedom – the freedom for ordinary people to do extraordinary things. Henry Ford, the Wright Brothers, and Steve Jobs created entire industries that provided good jobs for tens of millions of people.

Today there are so many regulations that FedEx could not get off the groundSubway RestaurantsHome Depot, Whole Foods, and Wynn casinos might not exist at all if they had started in today’s regulatory environment.

Together these companies have over 800,000 employees. How much worse would our economy be without those jobs? without the goods and services they produce? How many of tomorrow’s giant companies are being killed today by excessive regulations?

An old American adage declares that “To err is human, but it takes a politician to really screw things up.” They certainly have screwed things up. The latest jobs report was just one more example. Almost half a million people gave up looking for a job. The labor force participation rate is the lowest since 1979.

Poverty is the worst since the mid-1960s. The number of people collecting food stamps is at record high levels. Median family income is down for four straight years.

The current so-called recovery is the worst in 70 years. Per capita income and employment are lower than they were at the start of the recession. If this economy had been merely average, we would now have a GDP per person more than $4500 higher and we would see more than 14 million more people employed.

Why do I spend time on politics? Because it matters. Bad economic policies produce the conditions we now suffer. Good policies produce growing economies.

Canada’s conservative government adopted principles of lower taxes, smaller government, and more decentralization of federal government powers. For the first time in history, the average Canadian is wealthier than the average American.

There is one set of economic policies that has worked every time it has been tried. Year after year, around the world, among the fifty states, one simple policy has produced greater prosperity, better life expectancy, a cleaner environment, and more human rights.

That policy is economic freedom.

That is not just theory or ideology; that is history. Nearly 20 years of analyzing 183 countries has consistently shown that more freedom produces higher per capita income, longer lifespans, and more “happiness”.

Sadly, the United States’ rank in the Index  of Economic Freedom has dropped every year since 2006. We have fallen from “Free” to “Mostly Free”.

For a better economy, we need to elect politicians who support property rights, limited government, less regulating, and free markets. It works every time it is tried.

Down in Concord

“Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.” — Frederic Bastiat

Bastiat’s maxim was on display at the regional public hearing in Claremont last Monday (March 18). With a few exceptions, the participants were saying, “Please government, take money from everyone else so that my favorite program might live.” Sooner or later, they might understand another Bastiat quote: “People are beginning to realize that the apparatus of government is costly. But what they do not know is that the burden falls inevitably on them.”

At the hearing, I spoke against the new gas tax. I did not speak well, but apparently people did understand that I oppose the massive increase in the gas tax because the existing highway funds would be enough if even 83%, not to mention 100%, of the highway funds were dedicated to roads and bridges instead of having a full one-third diverted to things that have nothing to do with building and maintaining our road system.

The House began the year with 604 bills. To date, 234 have been killed, 207 were passed and will go to the Senate, 127 were retained in committees for more work in the Spring and Fall. The House will vote on 32 bills next week. The three big budget bills and a related resolution are still being drafted. The committees will make their budget recommendations by Thursday next week for floor action on April 4.

Last week the House met in session on both Wednesday and Thursday to act on 69 bills. It killed some good bills and some bad bills, passed some good bills and some bad bills. Most bills are fairly innocuous and of little interest to most people. There were three bills (at least) that many people might find interesting. The House killed HB 665, a casino gambling bill, by a bipartisan 4-1 vote. It passed HB 573, medical marijuana, by a similar bipartisan vote. By a smaller, but still bipartisan, 3-2 margin, the House passed HB 621, making possession of one-quarter ounce or less of marijuana a violation instead of a misdemeanor.

Next week the House will vote on 32 bills. Many of these bills went to a first committee, then passed the House, and were referred to a second committee. Having passed the House once already, they likely will pass the House when they come back for a second vote.

One bill that no doubt will be debated is HB 135, requiring would-be victims to try to retreat from an assailant before they are allowed to use a weapon to defend themselves, their families, or their community. There have been many instances of an armed civilian stopping a gun massacre before it became a massacre. If they had retreated to save themselves, those incidents would have turned into full-blown massacres. E.g. a woman in church killed a shooter who was carrying hundreds of rounds of ammo. Under HB 135, she would have had to escape to safety instead of using her handgun to save the lives of dozens of church-goers.

Another bill to be debated is HB 617, the largest tax increase in state history. Republicans will oppose it as unnecessary; we should just stop diverting $80 million each year away from the department of Transportation (DOT). Before the House takes even more money from struggling taxpayers it should ensure that the existing gas tax is used almost entirely for roads and bridges and not spent on agencies that have nothing to do with building and fixing our highways.

Proponents of this massive tax hike claim that we need it to fix our “crumbling” infrastructure. But HB 617 won’t repair a single bridge nor pave a single mile of road. It does not spend a dime on roads and bridges. It is a taxing bill, not a spending bill. With their arguments they are trying to tie together taxes and spending but the two are separate. The legislature could spend the exact same amount on roads and bridges with or without HB 617. For instance, they could allocate 100% of the highway fund to DOT, and that would actually put more money into DOT than the new gas tax would.

Conversely, the legislature could raise this new tax, and still not spend a dime extra on roads and bridges. Even if they keep their promise to put all the new money into roads and bridges, they could divert all the old money into state police and courts, welcome centers, etc.

Even if people favor the new spending, that does not mean we should accept the new taxes. If roads and highways are high priority, that means that something else must be lower priority. Let them cut lower priority spending – e.g. send less money to rich faculty and administrators in the university system.

The new tax lets them get away without making the hard choices as to which items are higher/lower priority. The net effect of a new tax will be more money available for low priority items.

And finally, the House Finance Committee will hold a budget briefing on the two big budget bills. I don’t want to suggest that the budget will be a joke but the briefing is on Monday, April 1st.

If it would save just one life…

A gun saved the lives of a Texas family from armed home invaders. Two heavily armed men tried to break into their home. The wife called her husband who retrieved “the family gun” and confronted the would-be robbers. He was injured but the two men killed themselves.

A sheriff department spokesman said “It’s another reason that we’re good with our homeowners being armed. I believe there would’ve been a different outcome if they hadn’t been armed. Our suspects were heavily armed.”

So-called “assault weapon” ban fails big

Diane Feinstein’s proposed ban on defensive weapons that she thinks are scary looking is dead, dead, dead. Harry Reid says it couldn’t get even 40 votes, much less the 60 votes it would need.

Still undeservedly alive is the other major gun control bill. It would require so-called Universal Background Checks. The idiotic thing about it is that it applies only to the good guys. “Universal” is anything but universal, for the simple reason that the bad guys never go through any background checks.

All of these gun control proposals make it harder for the good guys to obtain defensive weapons, and do absolutely nothing to stop the bad guys.

Man with concealed pistol saves woman from beating

Defending self, family, and community – that is why many of us think the right to have and to carry a firearm is so important. Here is just one example:

Charlie Blackmore was driving home from work when he saw a large man kicking a woman on the ground. He pulled over and told the man to stop. When the assailant headed toward Blackmore, he pulled his 9 mm pistol and called the police.

When police arrived they arrested the attacker and later thanked Blackmore, “He stopped the assault. No shots were fired. He wasn’t hurt and the victim was treated. We are grateful it turned out the way it did.”

I especially like this comment from the county sheriff:

“I want to get to a day when acts like this are viewed as a citizen doing their civic duty. Criminals have got to be reassessing things right now. They have to be asking themselves if it is worth it anymore, might they face resistance or be shot? That’s a good thing.”

Firearms in the hands of the good guys are not “assault weapons”, they are defensive weapons. Most of the time, like this one, they can stop a dreadful crime without a single shot being fired.

Gun control is not a solution

David Bowen (letter, February 19) implies that the solution to the world’s problems is yet more gun control. Never mind that this has not worked, and never mind that cities with the toughest gun control, e.g. Chicago, New York, and Washington, DC, have the worst murder rate. And never mind that states with much less gun control, e.g. Vermont (which allows all residents to carry a concealed weapon without a permit) and New Hampshire, are among the safest.

Here is one more fact for Mr. Bowen to consider: Criminals don’t obey laws. Passing evermore gun laws will have zero effect on criminals because they don’t obey the gun laws. Some politicians suggest that we should have universal background checks. Sounds sensible until you realize that “universal” means everybody except criminals. They buy their guns on the street without going through any background check.

Here is another fact: More people are killed each year by hammers and other blunt instruments than are killed with a rifle, “assault” or otherwise. More people are killed with fists than with any kind of rifle. A 2011 FBI report shows 323 killed by a rifle, 496 killed by “clubs, hammers, etc.”, and 726 by “hands, fists, feet, etc.” So why then do the gun controllers place so much emphasis on eliminating so-called “assault rifles” that are hardly ever used to kill anyone?

Another fact is that the fastest growing group of gun owners is women. In the last eight years the percent of women who own a gun has grown from 13% to 23%. They are buying guns to defend themselves against criminals who would assault, rob, rape, or murder them in spite of laws to the contrary.

The simple truth is that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens actually save lives. It doesn’t often make the news because no shot is fired, nobody is hurt. The intended victim is able to scare away the criminal merely by brandishing a pistol, or in some cases an AR-15. In rare cases, such as a woman hiding with her young son after hearing an intruder break into her house, the victim kills a criminal and saves not just herself and her son but future victims of that criminal.

(Printed in the Intertown Record, February 26.)

Here’s why legislators need guns

Mr. Baird asks, “Why do legislators need guns in the State House?” (Feb. 8-21 NHBR) He might just as well ask why does anyone need a gun in a church, a shopping mall, a restaurant, a movie theater, or a school. Mass shootings or would-be shootings have occurred in each of those places.

Why would anyone need a gun in a church? In December 2007, a criminal entered the New Life Church in Colorado Springs with a rifle, two pistols and 1,000 rounds of ammo. He killed two people and clearly could have killed hundreds more. He was stopped by a woman carrying a concealed weapon. In April, 2012, in another Colorado church, a felon killed one person before being killed by a church-goer carrying a gun.

Why would anyone need a gun in a shopping mall? In a Clackamas, Ore., shopping mall, December 2012, a criminal killed two before killing himself. A shopper carrying a concealed weapon may have ended the shooting spree by aiming his own gun at the killer and making eye contact. The only shot fired after that was the killer shooting himself.

Why would anyone need a gun in a restaurant? In Texas, a man crashed his pickup truck into a Luby’s restaurant, then started shooting, killing 23 people and injuring another 20. One of the patrons was Suzanna Hupp, who testified that she normally carried a gun in her purse and could have herself shot the killer before he shot dozens more, including Hupp’s parents — but she had left her gun in her car because the restaurant had a “no guns” policy.

Laws, or rules, or “no guns allowed” signs do not stop killers. Almost every mass shooting in the past 40 years has occurred in a so-called gun-free zone. Killers prefer such areas because they know it is unlikely they will face any armed defenders.

Some legislators know these facts. They prefer to trust their own abilities to defend themselves, their families and their community, rather than trust a rule or a sign to protect them. They carry not because it makes them feel “macho” but because they feel a duty to protect themselves and others from the evildoers that can be anywhere — in a church, a shopping mall, a theater, a school, or in a legislative chamber.

A concealed weapon in the hands of a good person is not the slightest danger to innocent people, but could save dozens of lives in the improbable but all too possible event of a criminal opening fire against unarmed legislators or visitors.

(Published February 22 at http://www.nhbr.com/businessnews/opinion/994599-290/heres-why-legislators-need-guns.html#sthash.dVfUa21G.dpuf

also at http://www.nhbr.com/February-22-2013/Heres-why-legislators-need-guns/)

Down in Concord

“No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.” — Mark Twain

Down in Concord, our State Reps have filed 581 bills, State Senators 142. Public hearings have been held on 308, another 195 are scheduled for this week. The full House has voted on 26, and will vote on another 49 this Wednesday.

Perhaps none of these bills is a danger to our lives, but many are a threat to our liberty or our property. Some few bills would expand our liberty and protect our property but those likely will not pass. As Thomas Jefferson observed, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”
Continue reading

Democrat politicians live in a fantasy world

Down in Concord, the legislative season has begun. The House of Representatives spent the first day tinkering with their Rules.

Rules – or not?
Would you play poker without rules, where the opponent gets to decide what the rules are on the spur of the moment? Or imagine that you are playing baseball, the umpire is a member of the other team and something happens that calls for him to make a ruling. Imagine him saying, “Yes, I know this situation is covered in the written rules, but there is precedent for ignoring the rules. I remember a similar situation in 1957 when an umpire ruled the other way. And that’s why my ruling stands even if the rules say it should be otherwise.”

That is essentially what the Democrats are doing down in Concord. There is a set of written rules, Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure, that covers just about every parliamentary situation that has arisen in any U.S. state legislature in over one hundred years. Mason’s is a primary source for the House rules. But the Democrats have decided that past precedent will trump Mason’s rules. The problem is that past precedents are not collected and written down anywhere. The Speaker of the House could rule however she wants, ignoring the written rules, simply declaring that she remembers a precedent from back in 1957 that trumps the rules.

Governments write tens of thousands of pages of rules that the rest of us must follow. Then the government finds a way to ignore its own written rules. What a way to run a government.

Redress of Grievances
The New Hampshire Constitution, like the U.S. Constitution, has a Bill of Rights. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights is the very first part of the NH Constitution. Article 31 states the purpose of the legislature: It “shall assemble for the redress of public grievances …”. Article 32 states that the people have a right to petition the legislative body for “redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer.”

Redress of grievances is an important check and balance. Governments do make mistakes; they do hurt innocent people. The people have a right to request that the legislature correct the wrongs done by government; the legislature has an obligation to hear those petitions.

The previous (Republican) legislature created a committee specifically for hearing petitions for Redress of Grievances. The Democrats have decided to eliminate that committee. Instead of actually doing something about a petition for redress of grievance, they will print a very short summary in the calendar, then file it away. Coincidentally, a petition from 1779 was recently discovered in the files. Will this year’s petitions be rediscovered in the files more than 200 years later?

Firearms
One of the most fundamental rights is the right to defend self, family, and community. This right predates our NH and U.S. Constitutions; the Constitutions simply affirm this basic right. Millions of people exercise this civil right by carrying a firearm. Yes, a firearm IS a tool for self-defense. And it is by far the most effective defensive tool ever developed. It is the great equalizer, allowing the weak to defend against the strong, the unskilled against the skilled. The fastest growing group of gun owners is women who recognize that they do not have the physical strength or training of a bad man.

Democrats have decided to turn the House Chamber and Gallery into a defense-free zone. Members will be prohibited from carrying a firearm to defend themselves and their colleagues. The rest of the State House, including rooms of the Senate, Executive Council, and Governor, are not covered by the new rule. A bad guy could legally carry a concealed weapon throughout the State House right up to the doors of the House.

Statistically a “gun-free zone” is a very dangerous place to be. A bad guy can kill dozens before the police arrive. Conversely, armed civilians can stop the bad guy early, before he commits a massacre. On average 14 people are killed before the police can stop the killer. By comparison, 2½ people are killed when an armed civilian stops the bad guy.

Democrats live in a fantasy world
The Democrat legislators apparently live in a fantasy world. They seem to think that passing a rule solves a problem. The bad guys will obey the rules. They will stop and turn around if they see a “No Guns Allowed” sign. In the real world, the bad guys prefer gun-free zones because they think nobody will have a gun to stop the bad guy.

In their fantasy world, Democrats decide how much money to spend, then they predict that is how much money they will raise. When the real world revenue doesn’t match their fantasy forecast, they raise taxes and fees – as they did the last time they were in control.

In their fantasy world, government never does wrong so there is no need to redress any person’s grievance. If any kook does submit a petition for redress, merely printing it in the calendar will solve the problem.

When Democrats in California, New York, Maryland, or Washington, DC wanted more money to spend, they fantasized that they could just raise rates on the “rich”. In the real world, the rich moved away, taking companies and jobs with them, or they found other legal ways to reduce their tax burden. In the end, the governments actually collected less money.

The Democrat politicians may enjoy their fantasy worlds, but those of us who live in the real world have to suffer the consequences of their follies.

Self-defense is one of the most fundamental rights

One of the most fundamental of all rights is the right of self-defense. Every living creature has the natural right to defend self, family, and community. This right predates our Constitutions and even mankind itself. All animals and even plants exercise the right to defend themselves; most animals defend their family, many defend their community.

Mankind from its very beginning developed tools for every aspect of life. Humans used rocks, spears, swords, crossbows, and finally firearms for self-defense. Yes, a firearm IS a tool for self-defense. And it is by far the most effective defensive tool ever developed. It is the great equalizer, allowing the weak to defend against the strong, the unskilled against the skilled.

There are bad people who use a gun as an offensive weapon but there are far, far, far more people who use a gun to defend themselves, their families, and their communities against the bad people.

Continue reading

Fascinating article about gun control

Last night I read a fascinating article by an extremely well informed guy. He has been a Concealed Weapon instructor, worked extensively with military and law enforcement, and studied “the heck out of actual events”. He has “heard every argument relating to gun control possible.”

Here are some extracts from a long, thorough article:

Armed Teachers

“The single best way to respond to a mass shooter is with an immediate, violent response. The vast majority of the time, as soon as a mass shooter meets serious resistance, it bursts their fantasy world bubble. Then they kill themselves or surrender. This has happened over and over again.”

“Police are awesome. I love working with cops. However any honest cop will tell you that when seconds count they are only minutes away. … in some cases that means the bad guys can have ten, fifteen, even twenty minutes to do horrible things with nobody effectively fighting back.”

“The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started.”

“Best case scenario, they [teachers and staff] engage and stop the attacker, or it bursts his fantasy bubble and he commits suicide. Worst case scenario, the armed staff provides a distraction, and while he’s concentrating on killing them, he’s not killing more children.”

“I personally taught several hundred teachers. I quickly discovered that pretty much every single school in my state had at least one competent, capable, smart, willing individual.”

“I met hundreds and hundreds of teachers, students, and staff. All of them were responsible adults who understood that they were stuck in target rich environments filled with defenseless innocents. Whether they liked it or not, they were the first line of defense.”

Gun Free Zones

“Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period.

“Think about it. You are a violent, homicidal madman, looking to make a statement and hoping to go from disaffected loser to most famous person in the world. The best way to accomplish your goals is to kill a whole bunch of people. So where’s the best place to go shoot all these people? Obviously, it is someplace where nobody can shoot back.”

“Over the last fifty years, with only one single exception (Gabby Giffords), every single mass shooting event with more than four casualties has taken place in a place where guns were supposedly not allowed.”

He goes on to discuss every single argument I have heard. Anyone who is serious about solving the problem, and not just succumbing to the idea that we must “do something” whether or not it works, should read the whole thing.

A Modest Proposal

The Anti-Idiotarian proposes that the gun-control advocates first experiment on themselves. Declare Congress and the White House as Gun Free Zones. Don’t allow a single weapon inside those buildings – and that includes police, security guards, and Secret Service. If it is good enough for The Children to have no means of self-defense inside school buildings, then it should be good enough for politicians to have the same.