Gun Control: Why it wouldn't have prevented the Newtown, CT killings

24 hours later, the hurt is not easing, but there are those that want the debate to begin now.  And what I am about to say will clearly anger those that want more restrictions on gun ownership, but the facts presented will prove how insane those steps would be in preventing such attacks.

What do the last four attacks, the Newtown, Ct. attack, the mall attack just 4 days ago, the Salon attack and the Sikh attack all have in common?  They were considered safe places that were "gun-free" zones.  What else did they have in common?  They were all in states that generally allowed "conceal or open carry" of guns.  You will see that almost every mass casualty shooting is in a place where people would not expect it.  Or, they are in places where the victims are not allowed to defend themselves.

If law abiding citizens were allowed to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, then maybe; just maybe, there would be less victims of mass murder.  Surely, if just one teacher or staff member would have had a gun, the shooter may have been stopped well before he reached the classrooms.  Innocent lives are lost today because of states not granting law abiding citizens their full 2nd Amendment rights.

It is obvious that law abiding gun owners are not committing these acts.  In yesterday's tragedy, the guns were stolen from his mother (who had no criminal record and obtained the guns legally), the shooter was under the age of 21 (not allowed to possess handguns), and he brought guns into a "gun-free" zone.  All seemed to be laws put into place to protect society, but all failed in a horrific way.

The tragedy in Norway was much the same.  71 lives were lost in a country that has high gun ownership.  However, Norway does not allow open or concealed carry.  You don't think one legal gun owner could have prevented some lives in that situation?

Again, and I have brought this up in other posts, Chicago has some of the most restictive gun laws in the world, yet more people are killed by guns in the city in one year, than all the deployed troops in active war zones.

The crazed mass murderer surely doesn't care about the sanctity of life; why would he care if he breaks a few gun laws to achieve is goal.  To think otherwise is just ridiculous, and that is where the left's argument falls apart.

It is time to admit that there are just evil people in this world that are willing to do the unthinkable.  I don't care if this guy had a mental issue or not.  The fact is he is just an example of pure evil.  Evil doesn't  care about laws.  Evil attacks the defenseless.  Evil attacks the weak.  Evil doesn't care if it's a gun, knife, car bomb, or airplane.  Yesterday, as well as many times in history, evil hit us at home.  This was personal to almost every human being.  The taking of such young, defenseless and innocent children in a place that parents must entrust safety of their precious children, is as heinous as evil can get.

So while we mourn and pray for all those affected by this massacre, lets not make the situation worse by adding new restrictive gun control laws.  Let's really think how we can let our teachers and administrators protect our children by lifting the ridiculous "gun-free" zones.  They should have the same right to protect themselves and their children, as I do in my home.  If not them, than who?