Jefferson Review

"Your Liberty is Our Interest"

Home /  Archives / Links / Quotes / Book Reviews / Advertise /Contact us / Subscribe / Calendar

Will They Now Disarm Us?

Terry Gray

“When victims have guns, the overwhelming advantage otherwise enjoyed by physically superior or more numerous aggressors is diminished. One (usually unintended) consequence of an effective ban on citizen firearms ownership is to weaken the weak and strengthen the strong relative to one another...  To summarize: from the point of view of any aggressor, it is desirable if not essential that intended victims not possess weapons, especially firearms. This principle holds true whether the subject is a gangster premeditating a crime or a government planning a genocide.”  (Washington University Law Quarterly).

They will scream from the rooftops now, “We need more gun control.”  They will refuse to see logic or look at facts. Not one anti -gun law in this country has diminished violence - Criminals do not heed laws - Only those who are armed can successfully fight against others who are armed.

It was only two years ago that Virginia Delegate Todd Gilbert submitted a bill to the Virginia legislature that would allow students with concealed weapons permits to carry weapons on Virginia college campuses.  Delegate Gilbert, when submitting his bill, was somewhat taken aback that state universities could elect to nullify a state law permitting carrying concealed weapons.  His bill never reached the floor of the legislature.  Nazis crawled out of the woodwork to oppose the bill.

After the bill’s defeat, Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker went on the record as saying, “I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.”  It took 40 minutes for cops to arrive after the first shots were fired last Monday.  The shooter took time off during the attacks to mail a package.  Defenseless students died like vermin while awaiting their rescue.  None were saved by police as the killer shot himself before he could be stopped.  Does anyone, including Mr. Hincker, now believe that those students, their parents, or their teachers felt safe on that campus?

Remember Columbine?  What changes have been made to stop such an attack from happening again?  The socialists think that anti-bullying rules will tidy up the loose ends and give our kids the self-esteem that they need to just say no to killing a bunch of fellow students.

How about Canada and its oppressive gun laws?  What happened to the security supposedly provided by such gun laws in the fall of 2006?  A 25 year old man killed one and wounded 19 others in a gun attack at Dawson College in Montreal.  The attacker was stopped by two cops who shot first and called SWAT later.

And the Amish school in Pennsylvania? 

Schools are easy targets, plain and simple.  We don’t see attacks on police stations, gun ranges, military posts, NRA or GOA offices, or anywhere else that is known for being armed or friendly to arms.  Also, with the new found freedoms associated with concealed carry permits, one can pretty much be assured that most any large gathering contains one or more armed citizens – except schools.  Why don’t we hang big targets on our school students and put out welcome mats to those who need some target practice?  I can see no reason for this open season on schools that the socialist anti-gun fanatics support.   Israel and Thailand allow teachers to carry concealed weapons but not this free nation with a guarantee of the right to bear arms – with one exception - Utah.

Utah is a concealed carry state, one of the 40 out of 50 states.  But unlike other states, Utah allows teachers and faculty with concealed carry permits to carry guns.  They also allow parents with concealed carry permits to carry weapons while visiting the schools.  There have been no incidents of mass murder in Utah schools.  What would-be mass murderer wants to attack a school where the intended victims shoot back, especially when he has a whole country of would-be victims?

“Some people who do not like the idea of teachers being armed to protect students simply get indignant, or declare that armed teachers are inconsistent with a learning environment. I suggest that dead students — and the traumatic aftermath of a school attack — are far more inconsistent with a learning environment than is a math teacher having a concealed handgun.”  Dave Kopel.

There are thousands of incidents in the United States where armed citizens have thwarted crime, to include violent crime, and likely saved lives, including their own.  (see:  http://www.combatcarry.com/vbulletin/archive/index.php/f-58.html).

In 1999 a Covington Kentucky man shot an assailant who demanded money.  The brazen attack occurred on a public street.  The police chief at the time, Charles Korzenborn, defended the actions of the would-be victim stating that, “People not only have a right but a responsibility to take care of themselves.  If you rely on the police to do everything you would need one cop for every citizen.”  Not understanding simple logic, then State Representative Jim Callahan (D) said the incident illustrates the danger of giving people greater access to guns.  “My district is a heavily urbanized area.  The last thing we need is more guns in the hands of people who are out on the streets.”  Representative Callahan actually had the privilege of illogically serving until retirement in 2004.

It is estimated that 30 million Americans legally carry guns today, either in their vehicles or on their persons.  We hear very little about how these gun carrying Americans thwart crime and save lives.  The incidence of criminal use of legally owned guns by those legally carrying guns is almost immeasurable – less than 1 in a 1,000, or 0.001%.  Thus, those illegally carrying and using guns account for 99.999% of gun crime. Can we afford to continue to assume that stricter gun control laws will reduce gun crime?  Remember, criminals don’t play by the rules.

We are subjected to many studies concluding in statistics that make no sense.  The liberal media publish such studies and most often disregard opposing information and they rarely temper their stories with facts.

Case in point:  A study published in 1998 in the Journal of Trauma of all places uses faulty logic and misrepresents the facts.  The study, put together by several doctors, looked at three cities over several months and came away with conclusions that a third grader would likely laugh at.

Memphis, Seattle, and Galveston had a total of 626 shootings in and around the home during the study’s time period.  There were 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides.  Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable (notice how they work in the “legally” part) or acts of self-defense, including three involving police officers.  “For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.”  Their conclusion:  “Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.”

First of all, the numbers don’t add up.  The study doesn’t account for three shootings.  Nor do the numbers add up for unintentional shootings, criminal assaults, or suicides in relation to the percentage of “legal shootings”.  We are not told whether or not the guns were legally owned by responsible law abiding adults.  We are not told how many crimes during that time period were thwarted by merely displaying a weapon.  We are not given the outcome of the cases where homicide was the original charge but the defendant was acquitted or the charges otherwise dropped.  We also have no comparisons.  How many suicides in total were attempted or completed and by what means?  How many homicides were committed other than by the use of guns?  How many people were accidentally stabbed to death or accidentally run over by cars near their homes?  This was a study, as with most studies of this nature, that was intent on a conclusion and the rdata was picked according to what conclusion was needed.

At the age of sixteen I would walk down the streets of Crestwood Kentucky with a shotgun or .22 semiautomatic rifle on my shoulder on the way to squirrel hunt.  I’d often stop off at the convenience store to grab a soda and candy bar, my gun prominently displayed, with no one saying a word.  Guns were everywhere and accepted.  Kids were taught gun safety and proper usage.  Until 1968 anyone in this country could readily order firearms through the mail.  This included mortars and bazookas.  I don’t recall any mortar or bazooka attacks as a result.  I don’t remember any massacres such as the one that happened at Virginia Tech.  It was after the Gun Control Act of 1968 that gun crimes began to grow markedly.  Firearms are less accessible today than before 1968 yet crime marches on in percentages that outpace our population growth.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states:

“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.”

The intent and meaning of this amendment has been argued for years.  It seems that splitting hairs on our freedoms is a fun game for legislators who oppose gun ownership.  Even the sentence structure has been studied and used in arguments by pro-gun control advocates, the placement of commas being the focus for some. 

Others much smarter than I have argued the meaning of the amendment and were I on the control side of the argument I’m sure that I would use their polished tactics, no matter how wrong I may be in doing so.  However, I am on the side of our Constitution and I try to refrain from interpreting it.  I think that logic does that job for us.  That being said, a friend told me that she is opposed to anyone owning guns, that the Constitution mentions militia.  This is the thought process planted by gun foes and with a liberal interpretation one can come to believe the meaning that they stress, but where is the logic?  Aren’t we, the citizens of the United States of America, the militia?  Every able body citizen in this country has a duty to protect our nation against enemies foreign and domestic.  Will we protect her with butter knives?

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.”  (Adolf Hitler)

This brings us to disarmed peoples and genocide.  It is often the case that genocide is preceded by mass disarmament of a nation or a group.  It makes the killing so much easier when the victims are defenseless.

In the 20^th Century there were genocides.  We all know about the ones in Hitler’s Germany but others are not so prominent.  The importance of these massacres is that the victims were all disarmed by their governments before being murdered by their governments.  Don’t think it can’t happen here.  That is what the victims of 20^th Century genocides believed too.

From 1915 to 1917, one to one point five million Armenians were massacred by the Turkish Ottomans.  They had been disarmed in 1866.

From 1929 to 1953, 20 million anti-communist/anti-Stalin citizens of the Soviet Union were murdered by their government.  They were disarmed in 1929.

From 1933 to 1945, 13 million Jews, Anti Nazis, and Gypsies were killed by the Nazi government of Germany.  They were disarmed in 1928.

From 1948 to 1952, China wiped out 20 million anti-communists.  They were disarmed in 1935.

From 1960 to 1981, the Guatemalan government executed 100 thousand Mayan Indians who were disarmed twice, once in 1871 and again in 1964.

From 1971 to 1979, 300 thousand Christians and political rivals were massacred by the Ugandan government.  They were disarmed twice, once in 1955 and again in 1970.

From 1975 to 1975, the Cambodian government wiped out one million educated persons.  They were disarmed in 1956.

And don’t forget out own Ruby Ridge and Waco massacres.  They are mere drops in the bucket compared to the above atrocities and only a small demonstration of what our government is capable of.

We can stop most of this nonsense by honoring our Constitution.  All of our rights are in jeopardy and one of the most important tools that we have to ensure that we don’t lose our other rights is the second amendment right to keep and bear arms.  

Weather (Louisville) / Mapquest /  White Pages / Business Search / CNN / Dictionary / E-card / MSN