Why are there gun free zones?

An Oregon college campus was the site of another mass shooting. Nine innocent victims were killed before the deranged shooter took his own life. Before nearly any facts behind the shooting were known, the President was already on the air calling for more gun control laws. Since we knew hardly anything about the shooting, how could the President know that any gun law he was suggesting would have done anything to prevent the shooting? He couldn't have known, obviously. He was merely exploiting the tragedy to push his agenda. Shame on him. However, we did know one thing about the shooting almost immediately – it happened in a “gun free zone.”

I saw this meme on FaceBook the other day. We defend the President with guns. Celebrities defend themselves with guns. When money is delivered to my office, I've noticed the armored car courier carries a gun. Why then do we “protect” our most precious treasure, our children, with signs that say, “This is a Gun Free Zone”? It seems counter intuitive that if guns can help protect the President from harm, that they couldn't also help protect children. Why then do some people still want gun free zones – especially in the case of protecting the children?

Not being able to completely understand the insane logic known as, “liberalism,” I did an internet search, trying to find out why people think gun free zones are a good idea and found a lot of rhetoric rebutting criticisms of the concept. Here are some of the “facts” being presented by defenders of gun free zones: I took these quotes from one source, but I've found the same points being made by many people so I'm considering them to be representative.

Mass shooters are completely unconcerned about whether or not an area is a “Gun-Free Zone.” A study conducted by Mother Jones found that, in 62 mass shootings over 32 years, there were exactly zero instances of a killer targeting a place because of a gun ban.

OK, that's interesting. I've read some criticisms of the Mother Jones study but let's assume this point is true. Even if mass shooters never target any place because he thinks unarmed people are softer targets, how is that an argument for gun free zones?

Furthermore, thirty-six mass shooters in the Mother Jones study committed suicide at or near the crime-scene, and 7 more committed ‘suicide-by-cop’ by engaging in a knowingly unwinnable shootout with police. This is not the sort of behavior that suggests that mass shooters are deterred by the prospect of gun-imposed security.

Hmmm. It also shows the shooter is not deterred by a sign that says, “this is a gun free zone.

Instead of guns deterring crime, not one of the 62 mass shootings surveyed was ended by an armed civilian

I'd laugh if it weren't so tragic. If law abiding citizens are observing the “gun free zone” restriction, it's not surprising that there weren't any around to prevent or stop the shooting once it started.

Also, does this study take into account those times when guns are used to stop crimes? There is the case, for example, where an armed, “resource officer,” Carolyn Gudger, confronted a gunman at Sullivan High school, Blountville, TN, and held him at bay until deputies arrived. The gunman was killed in a shootout with the police. Since no students were harmed, this incident didn't qualify as a mass shooting. However, it is certainly a case where an armed civilian very possibly stopped a massacre. I might post some videos sometime of showing guns being used by civilians to stop criminals. It happens all the time.

Despite the fact that one-third of our nation’s schools have armed guards or officers, there is no evidence that these measures have deterred or de-escalated mass shootings.

I believe the Gudger incident I cited above is one example where an armed guard deterred a mass shooting. Maybe there are more. But let's again assume armed guards do not deter mass shootings. We can still see clearly that neither are mass shooters deterred by gun free zones! At least if there are armed guards present, there is someone on hand to stop a shooting spree once it's started. That's not the case in a gun free zone.

As I read article after article defending gun free zones, what I mostly saw were weak rebuttals to the criticisms of them. I found very little arguments as to why we should have them in the first place. The article where I found the quotes above only had this to say in favor of gun free zones:

While there is little evidence to validate the efficacy of armed guards or officers, there is a plethora of research showing that a large armed presence on school grounds institutionalizes the early criminalization of Black and Latino males. Armed officers at schools are quick to make arrests and write tickets, fast-tracking these students into the criminal justice system, rather than college, having an overall negative effect on net educational outcomes.

Am I reading that right? Does it really say that if we have armed guards in schools then blacks and Latinos are more likely to become criminals? But then again, liberals are racists so it shouldn't surprise me that they would think if a security guard arrests a student, it must be a black student.

The more common argument made in defense of gun free zones is the possibility of accidental shootings. The cartoon I reprinted from the Armed With Reason article paints a straw man image of students walking around with rifles and lunch boxes. You do realize we're not talking about having students carrying guns, right? Now, I concede that it is a reality that the mere presence of a gun comes with the risk of accidental injury. After all, it's impossible to accidentally discharge a gun if there is no gun present. But apparently the President isn't so worried about that possibility that he won't protect himself with armed guards.  And by the way, how is it that celebrities and the President think they should protected with armed guards but don't think “the masses” have the same right?  We as parents in local school districts should be the ones to weigh the risks and make the final decision on how to protect our children.  If Rosie O'Donnell wants to protect herself with armed, security guards, I demand we have the right to make that same choice to protect our children.

So what's left then? Why are liberals so bent on imposing gun free zones? I have a theory: I think liberals would really like to have all of the US become a gun free zone where only the aristocracy (liberal politicians, celebrities, and the mega-wealthy like Warren Buffet) have guns and “the people” are unarmed. I believe that they think if students are raised in a gun free environment, they will be less likely to protest tighter gun restrictions in the future. I sincerely believe that gun free zones aren't intended to make kids safer but are all about controlling us. It's always about control with liberals.

Barking Up the Wrong Tree

Have I mentioned that liberals annoy me? I'm pretty sure I have. Did I mention too how they are brain damaged? Yes, I know I did. Well, I'm saying it again.

Jim Carrey, a typical, Hollywood-type liberal, recently made a video parodying Charlton Heston and the NRA. He calls it, “Cold Dead Hand,” a spoof on the line Charlton Heston often used during speeches: “I'll give up my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hand.” You can watch the video for yourself but here are some of the lyrics from the song:

Imagine if the lord were here
And he knew what you’ve been thinkin’
Would his sacred heart be sinkin'
Into the canyon of dismay

And on the ones who sell the guns
He’d sick the vultures and coyotes
Only the devil’s true devotees
Could profiteer from pain and fear

Those last two lines are the funniest (“funny” in an ironic sort of way). “Only the devil's true devotees could profiteer from pain and fear”? Really? Why is it that Hollywood constantly churns out movies portraying pain and fear via people being murdered with guns, on screen, in graphic detail? Even Mr. Carrey himself has been known to use guns in his films on more than a couple of occasions. Oh! And did I mention that all liberals are also hypocrites? I thought so.

Now, in the video, Carrey dons a cowboy hat, a western style shirt, and cowboy boots. He even feigns a southern accent by dropping the “g” at the end of words like “thinkin'” and “sinkin'.” I grew up in KY and cowboy hats aren't really a southern things as much as it is a western thing but I know what he's getting at. He making fun of rural people in general – those that some people might call “red necks.” They're the kind that President Obama said clings to their guns and Bibles.

Being from the south myself, I know a lot of gun owners. I even own a few guns myself. I just took my daughter shooting on her 20^th birthday. On my son's 10^th birthday, I gave him a rifle that once belonged to my father. My dad was an avid hunter, fisherman, and outdoors man in general. Gun racks in the back windows of pickup trucks were a common sight in the 70s. Dads even dropped off their kids at school with their rifles in plain sight. Really! Guns are a part of our culture. But in all those years, and of all my friends and family who own guns, I've never known anyone who has murdered someone with a gun.

Are there gun crimes in Louisville? Yes, of course. But there is less gun crime here than in some place like Chicago or Los Angeles. My question, then, is why is Jim Carrey (and the others of his ilk) so worried about rural people with guns? We're the law abiding ones. We're the responsible gun owners. Why doesn't Carrey parody... I don't know... maybe something like hip hop music? You know, the kind of songs that actually sing about killing people. Isn't that the kind of music that a lot of gang members (I.e – gun users and murderers) listen to? What would Carrey say about the following lyrics, for example?

I'm a wreckin cappin money stackin
Pistol packin son of a bitch
I'm throwed I'm so throwed in the club
And I got my gun in this bitch
….
Yeah I know you like my whip
But leave it at that cause I ain't no punk
Got a diamond in the back
And a sunroof top
Everytime I cock my glock I dunk
Forty five in my shotgun pump
Blow you out yo g*d damn socks nigga

Liberals are barking up the wrong tree.  They waste their breath condemning law abiding citizens and utter not a peep about people who actually shoot and kill people.  When gun crimes occur, Hollywood liberals rush to condemn the NRA, then will hang out and party with gansta rappers.

I know that many people from rural America aren't as “progressive” and cosmopolitan as folks on the coasts.  Liberals shun us like they have a phobia.  Frankly, I don't see the advantage of living in a city where there are 6 murders committed over the average weekend.

Like I said, liberals are brain damaged.

I Demand A Plan From Hollywood!

I'm not exactly sure why the majority of celebrities are liberal but I have a few theories.

First, liberalism goes hand in hand with elitism. Since celebrities receive adoration from the masses, they tend to think they're important people which is only a small step away from thinking they're better than everyone else. They quickly develop the belief that everything they say is wise and often use their celebrity status as a platform to tell everyone else what is best.

Second, I believe people derive satisfaction from hard work. Since celebrities don't really work hard, they often engage in charitable causes in order to feel they're doing something worthwhile. However, instead of serving (like most people do when they help with a charity) celebrities feel they need to tell other people what to do. As I said above, their attitude of self importance makes celebrities think they know what's best for everybody and their idea of benevolence is to force everyone else to "be good."

The problem is that liberalism is hopelessly intertwined with hypocrisy. To be a liberal is to be a hypocrite and celebrities are no exception.

Liberals think that guns cause gun violence and they believe that if we can just restrict more people from having guns, it will reduce the violence. They don't seem to take into consideration the “disregard for life” mentality held by the people who commit crimes with guns. What inspires a person to pick up a gun and kill someone? Such an idea is anathema to Christians who believe that we are created in God's image and murder is literally a crime against God. On the other hand, the Bible says that people who hate God love death (Proverbs 8:36). Perhaps the root of the problem isn't guns but is a violent culture that rejects God and glorifies killing in movies and video games.

In the wake of the Sandy Hook (and other mass shootings), several liberal celebrities have lent their celebrity status to promote a video called, “Demand a Plan” where they call on their fans (i.e. “the masses”) to demand that legislators pass more gun laws. By appearing in the video, I suppose the celebrities hope their fame will move people to action. I guess it's not unreasonable to think a celebrity can induce people to act since businesses pay celebrities millions of dollars to advertise their products. But if these celebrities think their appearance in a video can influence people to lobby against guns, why don't they also see that, by starring in movies where they use guns, their fame and influence might be promoting the same violent culture they're trying to combat?!

Here's a hilarious video where images of celebrities shooting and killing people are added in between the same celebrities' calls for more laws restricting guns. I don't need to explain why the video is so powerful. The hypocrisy of the liberals who profit from gun violence - and even use guns themselves - while they claim to want to end gun violence is plain to see.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not asking for laws that restrict the use of guns in movies. There is the First Amendment, of course, and I recognize that people have the right to make offensive movies. I'm for liberty and wouldn't have it any other way. Celebrities, too, usually cloak themselves in the First Amendment to hide the shame and guilt of the trash movies they star in. I wish that they would champion the Second Amendment like they do the First.

What I am calling on is a little self control from Hollywood. Why don't they lead the charge and start making films that edify instead of dehumanize? I'm not even saying all movies have to be G-rated; just cut out some of the wanton, gratuitous stuff.  Instead of using their fame to call for gun control, these celebrities should tell movie producers they're not going to star in films as murderers who shoot people with guns.

I demand a plan from Hollywood!

Looking Back on 2012

Many news sources at this time of year publish “Top 10” lists looking back on notable events of the past year. Many of these lists are lighthearted or, at the very least, try to reflect on some of the more positive events of the expiring year. I'm not saying that nothing good has happened in 2012 but as I look back, this year seems to have brought many challenges to the Church. I hate to throw a wet blanket on everyone's New Year celebrations, but here are a few things Christians need to think about and pray for in 2013.

Gay Marriage

Chick-fil-A CEO, Dan Cathy, suffered much political persecution after his personal endorsement of traditional marriages. In a less publicized story, Matt Grubbs, owner of Maryland based, Discover Annapolis Tours, has decided to close shop rather than facing a pointless legal battle with Maryland's Commission on Civil Rights because Discover Annapolis Tours does not offer its services to same sex couples. These are not isolated cases. More and more Christian business owners are discovering that their right to exercise their faith is subservient to an unenumerated right to be gay.

The tide is turning in America concerning gay marriage. In November, Maine and Maryland became the first states to approve gay marriage by popular vote, breaking a 32-state streak where gay marriage has already been defeated at the ballot box. In some states where gay marriage was defeated in referendum, it has still been foisted upon the people by activist courts or liberal legislatures. Nine states now allow same sex marriage.

Obamacare

Christian owned businesses have also found their right to practice their religion is being infringed upon by The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly called “Obamacare”). In an editorial last January, Catholic Bishop, David Zubik, detailed how the new health care law violates Catholic doctrine by forcing Catholic owned organization to pay for birth control and abortion-inducing drugs as part of its healthcare benefit their employees.

The new law doesn't just effect Catholics. Any Christian who owns a business will be forced to offer these services to their employees regardless of his or her religious conviction.

The Obama administration has set forth guidelines in a weak attempt to defend the religious liberties of Christian businesses but they are so narrow they basically do not exempt anyone except churches.

By the way, since when does the government get to decide which organizations are religious enough to practice their faith?

The DNC Booed God

More and more often, we see God being pushed out of public discourse. Prayer has long since been removed from schools along with the 10 Commandments. High school commencement speeches are scrubbed and censored to insure no student makes any mention of God. In general, any mention of God in the public arena risks swift reprisal from the ACLU or the Americans for the Separation of Church and State.

The recent election shed light on the current administration's attitude toward people of faith. The Democrat platform conspicuously omitted any mention of God and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (both of which had been included in the platform in previous elections). Having long been seen as the anti-God party already, the Democrats soon realized that omission was a little too blatant and moved to amend the platform and add the words. A voice vote was taken and the motion did not seem to have the required number of “aye” votes to be adopted. In an awkward moment of indecisiveness, former Governor, Ted Strickland, deemed the motion had passed which prompted a round of boos from the delegates.

On September 5, 2012, Democrats booed God!

Mass Shootings

2012 was spotted with tragic murders in Colorado and Connecticut. The senseless events serve to remind us that evil is real. John 16:33 tells us that in this fallen world there will be tribulation but we can have peace in Jesus.

These sad events have been made even more unfortunate as political opportunists have shamelessly used them as leverage to infringe upon our God given right to own guns. The war on God includes attacks on our liberties.

IN CONCLUSION...

There were many things that happened in 2012 that I could discuss now but I don't mean this to be an exhaustive list. Neither am I saying that these are the “top” events of that past 12 months. I've merely given these few examples to put the past year into perspective.

The New Year is usually a time for celebration and optimism. People see it as a turning of the page – an opportunity to start over on the right foot. I'm not trying to take away from any of that. Instead, I want people to think about some goals we could have for 2013 that might be a little more important than losing weight or going to the gym.

The Second Amendment: It's Not About the Right to Hunt

In the wake of the Connecticut tragedy, as was in the case of other mass shootings, there is a lot of talk about gun control. It's unfortunate that people will exploit such an event for political purposes but they do. In 2009, there were 12,632 homicides by firearms (about 34 per day). Of course, many of those deaths are related to drug and gang violence but in the CT shooting, the victims were innocent children. So even though there are shooting deaths every day, it's easier to use the events in CT to stir up outrage against the seemingly increasing violent consequences of gun ownership. But such a blatant appeal to emotion is not the point of my post today.

In an apparent attempt to show sympathy and respect for the victims of the shooting, some sporting goods stores, like Dick's Sporting Goods, has suspended the sale of all semi-automatic rifles. Since they are a privately owned business, they have the right to decide what they want to sell and not sell. This is not the government pulling guns off their shelves; it's their own decision so I'm OK with it. I do, however, question the wisdom of it. By suspending the sale of certain rifles, they may send the message that there is something wrong with those rifles. However, neither is this the point of my post.

Those who oppose the private ownership of guns use several approaches to restrict their use. Some would like to see an outright ban on any gun but such a radical move cannot be accomplished in one stroke. Therefore, they seek to disarm us incrementally. For example, they want to ban certain “military style,” “assault” rifles. The Bushmaster, used in the CT shooting, fires a .22 caliber round. I'm not aware of any military in the world that issues a .22 caliber rifle so it could hardly be called a military rifle. It only looks like a military rifle and liberals hope the undiscerning masses don't understand the difference.

There has also been much discussion concerning high capacity magazines. I've heard some people make the argument that there is no legitimate, sporting reason to have a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. The Bushmaster's magazine will hold 30 rounds so it can be fired 30 times without reloading.  Since the Bushmaster is used primarily in competition shooting, it's convenient in practice, when people are firing hundreds of rounds at targets, to have to reload less often. In hunting, the Bushmaster is not likely to be anyone's first choice. A rifle with a 30 round clip is too heavy and awkward to lug around in the woods.

But whether or not there is a legitimate sporting reason to have assault-looking rifles or high capacity magazines is all beside the point. The second amend guarantees our right to own guns – not to hunt and not to have shooting competitions. Read the second amendment for yourself:

“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 reason the founding fathers wanted to protect our right to own guns is overtly stated in the text: they believed a militia was necessary to maintain a free state. Let's face it, it's harder to oppress a citizenry that is armed. 

Now, some people have interpreted the term “well regulated militia” to mean that the Constitution was guaranteeing the right of the military to own guns. That's absurd. The Bill of Rights are specifically intended to protect the rights of individuals and to restrict the powers of the government.  Are we really expected to believe the second amendment was written to prevent the government from infringing on the government's right to have guns?

When the Bill of Rights was written, the US had just won its independence from England because it was able to overthrow Britain through the use of arms. Not wanting to ever subject the People to tyranny again – even tyranny from the fledgling US government – the founding fathers promised they would never take guns away from the People. Yet here we are, 200 years later, listening to despots who are anxious to take away our guns.

I think, too, that we need to carefully consider the wording of the second amendment. Some people believe it's the second amendment that gives us our right to bear arms. Actually, the amendment presupposes that right and prevents the government from infringing upon it. Notice that it doesn't say, “the people will have the right to bear arms.” Instead, it says that the right to bears arms will not be infringed. According to the Declaration of Independence, rights are given by the Creator and it's the role of the government to protect our God given rights. The second amendment acknowledges the right to use arms to defend oneself and promises that the government shall not intrude upon that already existing right. Repealing the second amendment does not take away our right to bear arms – it only removes our protection from a tyrannical government if it decides to take away our guns!

Liberals are tyrants. They're despots. I've said before they want a peasant class to reign over and gun control is simply another link in the chain they wish to use to bind us. Unarmed peasants are far easier to oppress. They don't care about our right to hunt; they're worried about our ability to resist.

I realize as I write this that some people will think I'm some fringe, militant nut. They might believe I have a bunker dug out in my basement where I'm just waiting for anarchy to begin. Let me say that I don't have any sort of Patrick Henry complex. I'm not calling people to arms (literally). I'm simply trying to wake people up to the fact that tyranny is real and liberty is something that must be zealously guarded. Any little threat to liberty must be beaten back.  Our first line of defense is the first amendment and I'm using my blog to bring the threats to light (we'll talk another time about liberal threats to the first amendment).

Tragic events like what happened in CT can cloud our judgment. We need a cooling off period before we react. Should we mourn? Certainly! Should we looks for ways to prevent similar tragedies? Absolutely! But if I may borrow the wisdom of Ben Franklin, we shouldn't give away liberty in the pursuit of safety or we'll end up with neither.