GUNS SAVE LIVES!
Learn how here.
Guns should always be used as a life saving tool; to defend innocent life from a harmful aggressor or to rightfully gather life sustaining food. We encourage females (and everyone else for that matter) to own firearms for self defense, hunting and or recreational purposes. In this article we will discuss some very specific points pertaining to how guns save lives. People (generally speaking) are no more or no less civilized today than they have been since the first existence of our modern day mankind of thousands of years ago. The factors that contributed in the days of old to people becoming dictators, thieves, liars, extortionists, kidnappers, slave traders and murderers etc. are still factors that are present today. Therefore, there is just as much of a need for individuals to own firearms today as there has ever been in times past.
Life Saving Tool: Consult any credible legal expert and you will learn that no government agency or local police department is required by law to provide individualized protection to any average citizens. The fact that there is a Dial 911 emergency system in operation in most communities does not imply that anyone is required to help you, nor does it guarantee that someone will assist you if you call that number. People need to realize that there is about one police officer for every 35,000 people in this country and that they are not all on duty at the same time. The ratio for medical assistance personnel to citizens is probably very similar.
This means two things: 1.) If you are in an extreme crisis situation and you call 911 for assistance, the police or fire & rescue personnel may be too busy to assist you. 2.) The police will not respond unless a crime has already been committed. In other words, if you call to say "someone is going to kill me, please send someone to protect me", no crime has yet been committed and the police will not sit outside of your door all night to protect you. However, if the neighbor calls 911 to report that someone broke into your house and killed you, then the police will respond because a crime has now been committed and they will go about their duties to try and figure out who committed this crime and bring the responsible individual(s) before a court of law to answer for said crime.
Knowing all of this, one realizes that self defense is the responsibility of the individual. If you want to be protected from hostile aggressors, then you must either hire bodyguards or do it yourself and become a respectable and responsible gun owner. This is at times easier said than done because there are a number of forces that are working against you if you want to own a gun for your personal protection. These forces are in the form of people who are described as follows:
-
Elitist is the common term for someone who feels that they are more important than their fellow citizens and are of the opinion that it is okay for themselves to own a gun for protection but it is not okay for common people who are beneath themselves on some perceived social ladder to own guns.
-
Dictators are those people who are either in politics or those who want to get into politics solely for the power and control that they desire to have over other people. Dictators usually own guns or have people with guns surrounding them for protection while they attempt to deprive the common every day citizens of the ability to own firearms. You have to be cautious of any political candidate that will spend millions of dollars of their own money to try and get elected to an office that only pays $70,000 per year.
-
Tree huggin' hippies are the types that believe that you can be really, really nice to the most evil person the planet for long enough, that the evil person will eventually change their ways and become a nice person. This kind of person will advocate that "all you need is love" and that violence will not solve anything. To the contrary, there are some people who are so evil that can not and can not change their ways and the only way do deal with such evil is through the working end of a firearm.
-
Extremist Lawmakers are the types who believe that if you make a law prohibiting a certain thing, that the very existence of that law will prevent people from performing that prohibited act. You see this all the time. ie Someone robs a bank teller at gunpoint, so some extremist lawmaker, makes a new law that says you can't take a gun into a bank when there is already a law that says you can't rob banks. Or better yet, let's say (hypothetically) that Wachovia bank adopts a policy that prohibits bank customers from carrying a firearm into a bank in what would otherwise be a lawful act. Whoever made up this (hypothetical) Wachovia policy obviously feels that prohibiting people from bringing guns into the bank is going to physically prevent a bank robber from entering the bank with a gun. In this hypothetical situation, Wachovia is not going to assume responsibility for your personal safety after requiring you to leave your handgun in the car and a rule like this would prevent productive members of society from defending themselves in the event that they are in a Wachovia bank while a bank robber is actively murdering bank customers during a robbery.
-
Lobbyists are people who work for an organization that is devoted to petitioning the government the conform the laws of the land to certain viewpoints. Lobbyists are not a bad things to have but there are lobbyist groups that are devoted to bad things. Some lobbyist groups are devoted to depriving you of your right to keep and bear arms. If guns are bad, then why do police officers carry them? If you file frivolous lawsuits against the gun makers to try and put them out of business, then who will make the guns for the police, military and elitists?
-
Religious or Fateist Extremists are those people who get elected to public office who feel that if you are ever attacked by a rapist or murderer, that the proper civilized thing to do is to simply allow the attacker to have their way with you. This may have something to do with the whole "turn the other cheek" concept. The original meaning of the biblical teaching to "turn the other cheek" has been distorted over the centuries. Originally, it meant that if someone does you harm, you don't give them the time of day. You are no longer required to be nice to them and you break off social relations with them. But now, the teaching has been corrupted to say that if someone harms you, or in this case strikes you on the cheek, that you are to turn your cheek so as to allow that dirtbag to strike you again, only on your other cheek. Nonsense! You should consider it a sin to refrain from defending yourself or defending a member of your family!
Gathering Food: Hunting is not just recreation; for some people it is a primary means of gathering food for themselves and their families. People who live in the big city may find it difficult to understand that there are a huge number of people who are either unwilling or unable to acquire food from a local grocery store and are depending on the ability to hunt for their own food for sustenance. Grocery store meat department decision makers have been caught by investigative reporters many times attempting to sell the public old meat that has been doctored up to look fresh and that no longer conforms to U.S.D.A. standards. Furthermore, not everyone has a grocery store within 25 miles of their residence. Many prefer to spend fifty cents on a bullet that will provide 200 pounds of meat for their family.
In Conclusion: The times in this country where someone uses a firearm to save a life, protect a police officer from harm while arresting a bad guy or put food on a family's table, far out weighs the occasional and regrettable times where someone uses a firearm in the commission of a crime. The leader of a major anti-gun lobbyist group was quoted to say that if banning guns would save just one life, that doing so would be worth it. To that we say that saving the life of a rapist or murderer during the commission of their crime instead of the innocent victim, because of guns having been outlawed is counterproductive. In theory, if banning guns would actually prevent people from having guns, it would then be theoretically possible that no one would die from bullet wounds. But on that note, it would also mean that since people have been killing people for thousands of years before guns were ever invented, then people would continue to die, it just wouldn't be from bullet wounds and innocent people would die at the hands of younger, stronger attackers as they did for thousands of years before guns were ever invented. Just because we don't have a revolutionary war to fight anymore does not mean that there is no longer a need for everyday citizens to own guns. Today, disarming citizens equals innocent people dying. Guns save lives!