In the wake of the horrific kindergarten massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, gun-control advocates are trying to exploit the tragedy by restricting Americans’ ability to defend themselves.
Erich Pratt, director of communications for Gun Owners of America, told WND, “That’s exactly what the president and many of the Democrat senators are doing here: using this tragedy to foist even more restrictions when the restrictions themselves, it can be argued, is what actually allowing this type of thing to occur.”
Pratt noted that most concealed carry permit holders will not bring a gun into areas where they are prohibited by law because upstanding citizens don’t want to lose their licenses.
“You don’t see people going into a school with a gun legally, but bad guys don’t care,” he said. “In fact, you could argue, that’s why they target schools, because they know they’re going to be the only one with a gun. They don’t target police stations. They don’t target gun shows or guns stores, places where they know people are armed. No, they go to places where they’re not armed.”
Pratt explained that the shooter in Aurora, Colo., this summer lived in an area where there were seven theaters within 20 miles of his home.
“He didn’t go to the closest one. He didn’t go to the biggest one,” he said. “He chose the only theater where guns were banned – where even concealed carry holders were not allowed to take their guns in. Again, that just underscores that these guys are evil, but they’re not stupid.”
He also pointed out that the Connecticut shooter didn’t stop his horrific killing spree until “good guys with guns arrived on the scene, the police.”
Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, said Sunday that he wished the principal of the Sandy Hook Elementary School had been armed with an M-4 assault rifle to stop the carnage cause by shooter Adam Lanza.
“I applaud him for that,” Pratt said. “And that’s actually been tried, successfully tried. In Pearl, Miss., an assistant principal used his own gun in defiance of the federal ban on having a gun in a school zone … to stop a kid who had brought his gun to the school and had killed and injured several people.
“Same thing in Montana. They have exempted themselves from the federal ban. So their teachers, their principals, can have guns there at school. Their right to self-defense doesn’t end at their driveway in Montana. They can bring them to school, and not surprisingly, we haven’t seen these types of shootings in Montana – nor do I think we will.”
Pratt also noted that Israel, after a horrific attack on children in the early 1970s, began allowing teachers to have guns to protect their students.
“Some of us here at GOA have actually been to Israel to witness this, have pictures of teachers with their guns as they’re on field trips,” he said. “They brought their school-related violence to a screeching halt once they started doing that. I think it underscores what everybody should know intuitively – and that is, bad guys want to look for soft targets in places where they’re going to be the only one with a gun.”
Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., has said says she’s planning to bring back the so-called “assault weapons ban.” But Pratt said it’s important to understand what types of firearms are covered under this legislation.
“Realize this, we’re not talking about machine guns,” he said. “Even though they throw that term around, ‘assault weapons,’ machine guns are already heavily regulated and nearly impossible to legally acquire in this country. It’s very, very difficult.
“Her original, so-called ‘assault weapons ban’ didn’t deal with one machine gun at all. They deal with semi-automatic firearms. That means you pull the trigger once and only one bullet comes out the barrel. They’re internally identical to any deer rifle that you would ever take hunting.
“That’s what we’re talking about here. These are the types of guns that they are trying to ban. It’s obviously just a foot in the door … They want to do to the whole country what they had done to Washington, D.C., and what they’ve done to every school, and that is people aren’t allowed to have guns. Obviously the bad guys will still get guns.”
Pratt explained that Washington, D.C., passed a “draconian” gun ban in 1976, prohibiting all privately owned firearms. The district quickly became the nation’s murder capital, several years in a row until the Supreme Court struck down the ban in 2008.
“The anti-gunners were screaming, ‘Murder is going to go through the roof!’ The exact opposite happened,” he said. “After 70,000 lawful residents quickly acquired firearms, their murder rate has now dropped to a 45-year low. It just underscores the fact that these folks don’t get it. They think that more guns are going to make us even less safe. Actually, the opposite is true: More guns in good people’s hands keep us safer. ”
While the Connecticut shooter is said to have had at least 100 rounds of ammunition. But Pratt said introducing new laws to ban possession of large supplies of ammunition would be counterproductive.
“First of all, good people would want to have that type of firearm and that many rounds of ammunition if they’re defending themselves in a riot situation,” he said. “That’s exactly what the Korean merchants did during the Los Angeles riots. Their stores remained standing while others around them burned to the ground. People can go in the Internet and find pictures of them with their semiautomatic rifles and the big banana clip sticking out the bottom.
“The other thing on that is – in terms of a bad guy with that many rounds of ammunition – look, they still get stopped by somebody shooting them. That’s exactly how a woman, five years ago this month in Colorado Springs, Colo., [reacted] at the New Life Church, which has thousands of people in their membership, when a guy walked in with 1,000 rounds of ammunition strapped on him, several arms in his possession. He was trying to commit the greatest tragedy on American soil, and yet it was a woman with a concealed carry permit that brought him down. She fired, hit him several times, critically injuring him, and then he ended up taking his own life. So it doesn’t matter how many rounds they have, they’re still going to die with one shot to the head.
“That’s what the police would do if they were there, but they can’t be everywhere. I’m not saying everybody has to carry a gun, but let’s not impose this morality, this philosophy that is not working, on those that would like to protect themselves and their loved ones.”
Pratt noted that Connecticut has the fifth toughest gun laws in the country.
“That didn’t stop this guy,” he said. “In fact, Connecticut has its own version of the Feinstein ban, a very strict version. It’s actually even stricter than what Feinstein wants to introduce. And all these laws didn’t stop that violent thug from doing what he did on Friday.
“When will we finally learn that passing another law, which is only going to prevent good people from protecting themselves, is not the way to go because it never stops these bad guys from disobeying the law?”