The BBC reports that a man with two pistols shot another man in the leg in a London restaurant. We all know, however, that this could not possibly have happened because private ownership of handguns is illegal in England.
CNN reports an Iowa high school football coach was shot and killed in the school’s weight room. We all know, however, that this couldn’t possibly have really happened because guns aren’t allowed on campus and criminals obey gun laws.
No pun intended, but our federal government is spending almost $500K to determine just why men don’t like to wear condoms during sex. You have absolutely got to be kidding me! Seriously, have you ever worn one? Did you like it? Is this really that complicated?
How is an elderly man expected to defend himself when he is attacked by three much younger, much stronger thugs? In the UK, he can’t. This poor man was savegely beaten and stabbed to death because he couldn’t legally own a handgun even for the purpose of self defense within his own home.
The attack was captured on a hidden camera installed after Mr Baker had previously been attacked.
Security cameras do not stop violent crimes. Guns often do. Another senseless victim of insane gun control laws.
CNN reports that authorites say the rifle used by James von Brunn to commit murder at the Holocaust Memorial Museum can’t be traced back to the original purchaser. What would be the point? The original purchaser didn’t commit this heinous act. Does it really matter who bought the gun? Other than returning the gun to the original owner? Why? It’s likely von Brunn purchased the gun legally and was the rightful owner (though not likely the original owner—it was manufactured between 1908-1928).
If a drunk driver kills someone, do we trace the car back to its original owner? Hunt down the 10 year old who bought the Louisville Slugger used by a street punk to bash the head of a mugging victim? Tracing guns used in crimes is equally absurd. The original owner didn’t commit this crime. Mr. von Brunn did.
In an unrelated note, a visitor to the museum displayed an all too common folly:
“We want to see the museum, and we trust the city of Washington to keep us safe,” he said. “Had we been in that lobby we could have been in the line of fire.”
Your trust, sir, would have been sadly misplaced as von Brunn clearly demonstrated. Had von Brunn chosen to open fire on the visitor, the city of Washington would have been helpless to protect him. Your personal protection is your responsibility. Except, of course, in DC where it’s virtually impossible to legally carry a handgun for self defense.