So the "intent" of prohibiting lawfully licensed carry holders from trespassing upon their "property" is for "public safety". Really? Is that truthful? Do we know any differently???
Sadly, this incorrect and decades of honest peer reviewed criminology studies have reflected in most cases true public safety actually goes up and violent crime goes down. At the very worst, allowing honest citizens to carry has no positive impact on public safety (rare) and sure as hell DOES NOT reduce public safety.
But typically it's simply ignored.
When our constitution articulates, and the state law specifies an individual right, why on earth when a person/group circumvents those rights "for public safety" (a true lie) then not be responsible for the harm that befalls others from such decisions defies logic.
When we force those who would disarm us, to then become responsible for our safety and the courts are supportive, perhaps then a change may be effected. Until then, we will have to address each infringement one by one.
The victims of Aurora, Co "sue movie theater owners" claiming that inadequate security procedures failed to prevent the attack that killed 12 people and injured another 58.
In Aurora a sign posted carries the weight of law, subjecting the individual to arrest, loss of rights and finances. When the truth is public safety increases and violent crime decreases when honest people are armed, why then do we not hold those responsible when they disarm the honest non-criminal?
When a business that disarms its patrons by force of law, we should then ignore them when that decision fails to honestly protect them from a massacre? There is a fundamental right to self defense and preservation that is being denied for permission of use. When will this stop?
http://www.insidecounsel.com/2012/09/24/colorado-theater-shooting-victims-sue-movie-theate
In failure of the anti-rights folks in the criminology arena, the "public health" field, a fertile soil for sowing an agenda is being accomplished. Success by executive order our tax dollars are once again to be used funding "public health" research on "gun violence". Typically the negative is researched with little or no consideration of the benefit occurs in these government funded "studies".
The recent EO directed "gun violence" report is "inconclusive". Important to note, this recent "inconclusive" study only evaluated encounters of an armed criminal and an armed victim but "ignored" cases of the victim being armed and the criminal not. Why? Despite this omission the report failed to support the president's position.
The report you won't be hearing on any major media outlet. Why?
As known already suicide is the majority of "gun violence" they screech about. Depression and mental illness cause suicide not guns. Guns are simply a method not cause. The highest suicide rates in the world occur where their citizens are forbidden from touching a gun (Japan).
Also well documented for decades and ignored; armed victims have less morbidity and mortality. Shockingly the directed study confirmed this as well.
So what action should be taken to curb the unlawful use of firearms...... I guess is it isn't by disarming the citizens but we won't hear about this, now will we from our current administration.
The study being ignored
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1
Sadly, this incorrect and decades of honest peer reviewed criminology studies have reflected in most cases true public safety actually goes up and violent crime goes down. At the very worst, allowing honest citizens to carry has no positive impact on public safety (rare) and sure as hell DOES NOT reduce public safety.
But typically it's simply ignored.
When our constitution articulates, and the state law specifies an individual right, why on earth when a person/group circumvents those rights "for public safety" (a true lie) then not be responsible for the harm that befalls others from such decisions defies logic.
When we force those who would disarm us, to then become responsible for our safety and the courts are supportive, perhaps then a change may be effected. Until then, we will have to address each infringement one by one.
The victims of Aurora, Co "sue movie theater owners" claiming that inadequate security procedures failed to prevent the attack that killed 12 people and injured another 58.
In Aurora a sign posted carries the weight of law, subjecting the individual to arrest, loss of rights and finances. When the truth is public safety increases and violent crime decreases when honest people are armed, why then do we not hold those responsible when they disarm the honest non-criminal?
When a business that disarms its patrons by force of law, we should then ignore them when that decision fails to honestly protect them from a massacre? There is a fundamental right to self defense and preservation that is being denied for permission of use. When will this stop?
http://www.insidecounsel.com/2012/09/24/colorado-theater-shooting-victims-sue-movie-theate
In failure of the anti-rights folks in the criminology arena, the "public health" field, a fertile soil for sowing an agenda is being accomplished. Success by executive order our tax dollars are once again to be used funding "public health" research on "gun violence". Typically the negative is researched with little or no consideration of the benefit occurs in these government funded "studies".
The recent EO directed "gun violence" report is "inconclusive". Important to note, this recent "inconclusive" study only evaluated encounters of an armed criminal and an armed victim but "ignored" cases of the victim being armed and the criminal not. Why? Despite this omission the report failed to support the president's position.
The report you won't be hearing on any major media outlet. Why?
As known already suicide is the majority of "gun violence" they screech about. Depression and mental illness cause suicide not guns. Guns are simply a method not cause. The highest suicide rates in the world occur where their citizens are forbidden from touching a gun (Japan).
Also well documented for decades and ignored; armed victims have less morbidity and mortality. Shockingly the directed study confirmed this as well.
So what action should be taken to curb the unlawful use of firearms...... I guess is it isn't by disarming the citizens but we won't hear about this, now will we from our current administration.
The study being ignored
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1
