What can we learn from criminal and terrorist attacks inside America’s Gun Free Zones? We learned that terrorist and dangerous criminals ignore gun prohibitions in places like malls, schools and hospitals. We need a single Federal law that exempts any armed citizen who enters or remains in a so-called Gun Free Zone to combat anyone engaged in an unlawful deadly attack against others
An example would be a parent who resorted to justifiable use or threatened use of force to stop a dangerous attack on a child at a school. Another would be a person that used a gun to take on a sniper or other armed criminal inside some shopping mall. What purpose would prosecuting anyone but a real criminal serve?
I contend that Gun Free Zones are constitutionally impermissible anyway. But until the high court rules we have to deal with a little reality.
It would take a total miracle to pass something with any amount of common sense in the upcoming Leftist Congress.
3 comments:
I just read on another forum that some of the cops in Mumbai were armed with rifles, yet took no action when the terrorists were in the midst of their killing spree. Supposedly, the reason was not cowardice or anything like that. They allegedly had no ammunition to go along with those rifles.
You've been there Paul. During your talks with the Indian coppers, is this plausible or just some internet bullcrap?
This no ammunition thing is more than a rumor. It’s left over from British rule where the police and security forces were not issued ammunition until bosses approved.
I have always seen FNFAL rifles with inserted magazines but I never inspected one nor have I seen the magazines outside of the rifles. They well may have been empty.
I did see police with Ruger Security-Six revolvers with ammunition visible but was it the real deal? Smoke and mirrors are everywhere. Police shootings in India are nearly unheard of. Perhaps this is the reason.
The blame may yet shift to the politicians.
I have seen Indian civilians shooting skeet with shotguns and with .32 caliber handguns on a range. I know that civilians can own suitable firearms in their home under complicated legal conditions.
Armed men are citizens,unarmed men a subjects.
Post a Comment