After the Umpqua College shooting in Oregon, President Barack Obama lied to America that States with stricter gun control laws have less gun violence. The cities with the strictest gun control laws are well known as being among the most dangerous places to live. Chicago tops that list as the murder capital of the country.
While the Obama administration works to take guns away from law abiding citizens so that the criminal element can enjoy a frenzy of target practice because the fear of being shot would be gone for them, the reality of Wayne LaPierre's statement that the best defense against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun recently played out in. . . yep - Chicago.
While an armed criminal was robbing a neighborhood store, a customer with a concealed carry license shot and killed the bad guy.
While an armed criminal was robbing a neighborhood store, a customer with a concealed carry license shot and killed the bad guy.
Here's the tough part. The article that reported this by the Associated Press actually suggests that it is possible for the customer with the gun to face charges. Though they admit "preliminary details suggest that the customer was not at fault," there is actually a consideration that the guy who stopped an armed robbery where the clerk was ushered to the back of the store by threat could face charges.
Police say, "We're looking at it as a self-defense issue at this point."
Damn Straight! Bad guy had a gun. Bad guy was robbing the store. Bad guy was threatening to shoot clerk, and anyone who got in his way. Bad guy got shot by good guy. Forget the consideration of charges. The good guy should get a ticker-tape parade.
The AP story then explains how last month a Michigan woman with a concealed carry license shot at shoplifters fleeing a Detroit-area Home Depot store, flattening a tire of their SUV. No one was hurt, and the suspected shoplifters were arrested several days later. The woman faces up to 90 days in jail after pleading no contest to a charge of reckless discharge of a firearm.
Reckless? She stopped the bad guys, and nobody got hurt!
I get it. We don't want vigilantes running around shooting this and shooting that. We don't want it to be the Wild West. Well, even the Wild West wasn't the Wild West depicted in movies.
A few years ago when I was at a City Council Meeting in Murrieta where the possibility of an indoor shooting range coming to the city was on the docket, a woman stood at the dais and said, "a shooting range will attract people with guns to our city, and we don't need that kind of criminal element in our city."
In the eyes of the liberal left progressive lunatics, a good guy with a gun is dangerous, if not more dangerous, than a bad guy with a gun. If you are a gun owner, according to these people, you are already a dangerous criminal. And they have this silly idea that if you outlaw guns, that outlaws will give up their guns, too. In countries where guns have become banned, incidences of violent crime and home invasions have increased. The criminal element will use guns, or whatever they can, to do what they can, and when they no longer have the fear of getting shot because good guys with guns are no longer allowed to have guns, the criminal element is encouraged to do more crime. To be more violent. Why not, if they have no fear of repercussion?
I wish I could personally thank the good guy with a gun at the Chicago store that shot and killed the bad guy with a gun. I guarantee you, once word gets out, the robberies will shift to an area where the bad guys feel they have a less chance of being shot at.
Could you imagine if good guys with guns had been at the places where there have been shootings, like Umpqua?
That's the difference between liberal left gun-free zones, and places where a gun-owner can carry. In the places where the liberals have succeeded in banning guns, death of innocent lives is always the ultimate conclusion.
So if banning guns does not make society safer, then why would the liberal left want to take away our guns?
Could it be for the same reason guns are always banned in history? Could it be so that those that disagree with an oppressive government can't shoot back?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment