This
week's news included an all too familiar headline, "Man shoots two, stabs one in
VA hospital." My attention was drawn to another familiar item in a follow up
article reporting that armed guards had been posted at that hospital. The guards
were posted AFTER the killer went about his deadly business.
Also in this week's news, the
story of the gun used when another killer, apparently dissatisfied with the
legal services he had received from the law firm of Pettit & Martin, entered
their offices on the 34th floor of 101 California Street at 2:57 PM and within 4
minutes killed 8 people and wounded 6. He then killed himself.
More of the story from the
local newspaper. This should be a familiar story to most firearms activists,
pro and con. The lawyers at that firm rallied around that murderous act to form
an anti gun coalition and eventually pursued various lawsuits aimed at driving
the firearms industry out of business. They have spent the last eight years
demonizing guns and using all of their legal skills, money and influence, to
further disarm American citizens.
This murderous rampage occurred in
1993, but I remember a follow up story, then, that reported the posting of armed
guards in the lobby of the attorney's office. Again, they posted armed guards
AFTER the killer had accomplished his deadly mission.
I don't think it unreasonable to
believe that those lawyers were involved in the decision to pay armed citizens
to guard their office once they experienced, first hand, the fear that criminals
inspire. They made the determination that an armed citizen can prevent crime and
will create a safe environment in their workplace.
I agree with the lawyers. Armed
citizens save lives and create a safe environment. Ask any cop and he will tell
you that his gun is intended to save lives. All those armed security guards you
see in today's society are trained to use that firearm for one purpose only --
to save lives. In 44, or so, states, hundreds of thousands of citizens licensed
to carry a firearm do so for the very same purpose of saving lives.
It seems that we all agree, in
principal, that guns save lives. We have those lawyers at 101 California Street
in CA, every policeman and armed security guard in these United States, and
hundreds of thousands of armed citizens, some licensed to carry concealed,
agreeing that guns save lives.
Diane
Feinstein apparently agrees. A news item reported that she had the one and
only concealed firearm permit issued in the City of San Francisco at one time.
Another California Politician,
Don Perata, has a concealed carry permit and it must be assumed that he
believes in the value of a firearm for personal protection.
Why does HCI (or whatever the name
those gun grabbers choose when it is obvious their message has soured and they
need a new image) oppose the rights of lawful citizens to protect themselves?
Why does HCI go to such great length to prevent the live saving efforts of
honest citizens?
Certainly, guns are not for
everyone. Not everyone wants to own a gun, become a cop or security guard, or
lawyer or politician. But all evidence indicates that guns in the hands of
honest citizens saves lives.
Why can't we agree that if you are
an honest citizen with a concealed carry permit, you will make this a safer
world? We can agree that if you choose a police or security profession that
allows you to carry a gun, you will make this a safer world. And it appears that
if you are one of those that have the power, money and influence to get a
permit, you will think that you make this a safer world.
Why does HCI continue to oppose
these life saving efforts of honest citizens?
|
