One of the news digests I receive over the Internet reported last week:
"FEWER GUNS FOUND IN SCHOOLS: Despite an outburst of horrendous and
well-publicized shootings in schools, the U.S. Education Department said
today the number of students expelled for bringing guns and explosives onto
campuses took a sharp dip last year."
Can anyone spot the blatant bias in this "news summary"? Focus on that
word "despite." Now try reading the same item, substituting for the word
"despite" the phrase "Helping to explain ..."
One more time: Nut cases only succeed in multiple killings when they can
be confident their prospective victims are disarmed.
As Marilyn Henry reported for the Jerusalem Post on Aug. 12, under the
headline "U.S. Jewish gun advocates call for self-defense":
"Aaron Zelman isn't calling for gun control after the Tuesday shooting at
a Los Angeles Jewish center that wounded five people, including four
children. Quite the reverse: He is aggressively pushing Jewish
" 'The Jewish community is blind,' said Zelman, the chairman of Jews for
the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. 'We must be able to defend
ourselves against evil-doers.' ...
A Marine Corps veteran who believes "gun control" will eventually lead to
an American police state, Zelman told the Post that Israelis -- who have
experienced no such terror attacks since they started arming teachers, day
care workers, and even parent volunteers -- could teach America's liberal
politicians a thing or two about self-defense.
" 'I chose to move out of the city of Milwaukee and take my children out
of a Jewish day school because the people who run these schools don't give
a damn about security. What they call security doesn't amount to a $25
system from K-Mart,' said Zelman, the father of two.
" 'I am not going to subject my children to being sitting ducks because
of what I call Jewish stupidity. They are not going to be victims like
these kids today,' he said."
Mr. Zelman was even more strident in a subsequent interview with the
Internet publication World Net Daily, declaring: "It's time for the
American gun owners -- Jewish and non-Jewish alike -- to take a stand
together, shoulder to shoulder, and tell the 'victim disarmament' crowd
that the blood is on their hands for what happened (in Los Angeles)."
" 'The JPFO is not a bunch of redneck, paranoid Jewish gun nuts,' Rabbi
Reuven Mermelstein, director of the group's editorial board, told Ms. Henry
of the Post.
" 'It says in our Torah, "And you must surely guard your life." I
understand this injunction to mean stay out of inclement weather, eat
wisely, and be armed.' "
"While California's state constitution has a provision for the issuance
of concealed weapons carry permits, it is the long-standing position of the
Los Angeles Police and Sheriff Department that no permits are ever issued,"
Rabbi Mermelstein wrote in an Aug. 11 Internet "alert" to JPFO members.
"We were, are, and will continue to be victims. If anyone attempts to arm
him or herself, he or she will be in violation of the law and tried as a
criminal. ... A layman's rendering of Exodus 22:1 would read, 'When you are
threatened with deadly force, don't look to Me. You have been commanded to
take whatever measures are necessary to ensure your own survival.' "
The world is, sadly, overpopulated with psychotics like the Los Angeles
shooter, says Rabbi Mermelstein. "But Americans have always had the cure.
(Only) the whims of capricious legislators living inside their gated
communities ... prevent its use. It is a national disgrace that ...
potential victims are denied the only known disease prevention that is
easily carried in a waistband or handbag."
Of course, those with an irrational phobia for firearms -- the tools with
which Americans won their independence and brought down Adolf Hitler --
will whine, "Turning our child care centers into armed camps will never do;
fighting violence with violence is never the answer."
Really? So when the folks at the North Valley Jewish Community Center
dialed 911 last week, they specified "Now, please don't send us the kind of
officers who carry guns, since we believe guns never solve anything"?
Of course not. They hoped the LAPD would send the best shooters in town.
We already do fight guns with guns. The only mistake
we make is in believing the police will ever arrive in time to stop the nut
from working his will on his victims -- the cretinous assumption necessary
to embrace "gun control," which really only means "victim disarmament."
What are culture and technology good for, if we don't use them to protect
the progeny to whom we hope to hand down these achievements? Yet while
great Americans like Samuel Colt and John M. Browning gave us the tools we
need to protect our children, our current crop of politicians make it
harder and harder for that technology to be used by law-abiding citizens.
We tolerate tax rates which require mom to work outside the home just to
pay the taxes on dad's paycheck, which is all that creates the need for
"day care centers" in the first place. Yet does anyone blame the IRS and
its tax code for such shootings?
Air bags have killed more American kids than school shootings since 1983
(82 dead in school shootings, according to the National School Safety
Center; 99 killed by airbag deployments, even if 21 of those have yet to be
confirmed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.) But do we
wheel out brain-damaged cripples in wheelchairs under the TV lights,
prodding them to mumble out a memorized plea for "Air Bag Control"?
"It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to
surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the
government more than $500 million dollars," according to a
letter-to-the-editor published in the Orange County Register Aug. 4. "And
now the results are in: ... Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44
percent (yes, 44 percent). In the state of Victoria, homicides with
firearms are up 300 percent. ...
"Bet you won't see this data on the evening news," the California
letter-writer concludes. "It's time to state it plainly: Guns in the hands
of honest citizens save lives and property."
John Lott, a law professor at the University of Chicago, agrees: "The
safest course of action by far for someone to take when confronted by a
criminal -- whether the criminal's armed or not armed -- is to have a gun
yourself," Lott told World Net Daily this week.
Lott's studies -- the most detailed ever undertaken -- show women who
behave passively when confronted by a criminal are 2.5 times more likely to
be injured than women who actively attempt to defend themselves --
especially by pulling their own gun.
"If you look across the United States, those states with the highest gun
ownership rates tend to have the lowest murder rates and lowest violent
crime rates across the board," says Professor Lott. "And probably more
importantly, those states that have had the biggest increases in gun
ownership have had the biggest relative drops in violent crime."
Which state has the most onerous victim disarmament regulations, by the
way -- now including the first statewide attempt to actually confiscate
semi-automatic rifles once ruled legal?
The state to which the depraved Buford O'Neal Furrow Jr. traveled in
search of an easy target, of course: California.