All News & Blogs
Nothing that is being talked about will in any way curtail a criminal getting a weapon and killing innocent people. Is the conversation to limit the number of deaths? Is it the type of weapon used to kill innocent people? Shouldn't the conversation be on stopping the attack? If my child is in a school or my family is at a mall, I take no comfort if the criminal has three 10-round magazines or two 15-round magazines. I take no comfort if the criminal has a sword or a knife. Box cutters have killed almost 3,000 innocent people. Our reaction was to put armed agents on aircraft.
Let's talk about guns and grandpa or your wife or child. If a criminal breaks into their house with a bat or knife and maybe ropes and duct tape, chances are grandpa, grandma, your wife or child, and maybe you will come in second place in a fight. The gun equalizes this situation and this has been proven thousands of times.
If there were no guns, horrific crimes would still happen. It is criminal for
As long as violent criminals exist we demand the right to defend ourselves with the best means possible. Locking our children in a classroom and hoping the killer only has one 10-round magazine is not security. It is action to control a situation that has merit if combined with proactive security and the ability to stop the attack at initial point of entry.
People need to look up the definition of "criminal." A person intent on doing harm does not follow the law, hence the term "criminal." How is that no-gun-zone thing working for you?