Guns Don't Kill People, But 'Gun-Free Zones' Do

We all grieve for the horrific child massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, but if we really want to protect future lives, we must replace the emotional anti-gun rhetoric with an honest examination of the facts.

I honestly do understand how easy it is for people to respond to tragedies like this with an emotional appeal to get rid of all the guns - to, as President Obama said, "take action." Or, as many are saying, "do SOMETHING."

The question becomes: will the action we take save lives or cost more? This requires reasoned thought instead of blind emotion. It requires an examination of the facts.

Adam Lanza reportedly obtained the guns for his massacre illegally, stealing them from his mother after murdering her. There is no law currently proposed by Democrats in Congress that would have prevented Lanza from doing what he did. None.

That bears repeating. There is no law currently proposed by Democrats in Congress that would have prevented Lanza from doing what he did and liberals need to quit ignoring this basic fact.

Connecticut has some of the most restrictive gun ownership laws in the country, yet this massacre happened there. So, simply put, what additional law in Connecticut would have stopped this? Banning automatic weapons? Lanza didn't use an automatic weapon. He used two pistols and a semi-automatic rifle, which fires only one bullet for each time the trigger is pressed.

So what additional law, then? Ban ALL guns so his mother could not have owned them in the first place for him to steal?

Let's be honest; banning all guns is the Holy Grail utopian end game for many liberals in America. Emotionally, it seems like a nice idea, no more guns. Logically, however, it's impossible, and liberals seem either unwilling or unable to admit this. ...

READ MORE>>>