In a rash of crime criminals are proving that they don’t need firearms in order to commit their acts of brutality.
In a recent trend another person was beaten and thrown onto subway tracks, this time in Philadelphia. Philly, I remind you is a den of anti-gun sentiment with Mayor Nutter leading the charge. Hmmm…i wonder what could have helped this woman stop a larger more physically imposing male assailant from beating her and tossing her onto the subway tracks? According to the gun control zealots it was better for her to nearly die than to have the ability to defend herself with a firearm.
A woman in New Jersey, one of the most restrictive states for the law abiding to get a firearm to defend themselves, was brutally stabbed repeatedly while she was with her baby inside a Bed Bath & Beyond. Could a woman defend herself and her baby with a firearm against an attacker with a knife? Gun Control zealots would in New Jersey would prefer you not find out.
In a Dallas Hardware Store, a clerk had his throat slashed and was beaten with a hammer and left for dead. I wonder if the gun control zealots would think the perpatrator of this attack would be easily found if only his hammer was registered.
A woman had her face slashed at the Fayette Mall in Lexington KY. I’m not sure how this happened because Fayette Mall lists as number 20 of their Code of Conduct that weapons are not allowed in the mall except by police officers. This is not only a Gun Free Zone it is a Weapons Free Zone. Of course, only the law abiding listen, so this group of slashers gets to have a pick of unarmed targets to attack.
Everyone of these situations occurred when a smaller, weaker, or outnumbered victim was violently attacked. A gun in their hands would have been an equalizer to the roving animals of this world that walk upon two legs.
Yet, the gun control zealots see these four stories as a victory. So some people got stabbed and were put into a hospital, a pretty girl has her face scarred for life, a man is beaten so badly he can’t even speak to the police to tell them what happened…none of the attackers got shot. And at the end of the day that is what the Brady Campaign and Mayors Against Illegal Guns must want because every law that they have suggested, pushed for, and/or implemented creates a world where only criminals benefit.
Gun Owners of America 
Augie
January 18, 2013 at 10:43 am
Reblogged this on No title necessary and commented:
They’re apparently OK with ‘your’ blood or the blood of your ‘loved ones’ on their hands…
jamie
January 18, 2013 at 10:46 am
mybe old ladys shood lern kung fu
Harry the Horrible
January 18, 2013 at 10:47 am
People who believe in Gun Control feel that a woman who is raped and strangled to death with her own panty hose is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to the authorities how her dead assailant got that way.
lehighvalleypatriot
January 18, 2013 at 10:57 am
Reblogged this on Lehigh Valley Patriot.
William
January 18, 2013 at 11:02 am
I say for every gun they ( the government) takes, they should get to be sued for lack of protection! Lets see how far that take them in to debt!
Danny Hunt
January 18, 2013 at 6:37 pm
@ William..the government doesn’t care about debt. Isn’t that painfully obvious.To sue them would mean nothing. They would just raise your taxes and take it out of your check.
henrybowman
January 18, 2013 at 1:40 pm
Hey, let’s take this to the next level.
Remember, it’s very important to the gun-control zealots NOT to be known as “gun CONTROL zealots,” but as “gun SAFETY zealots.” So you could rewrite this entire article using the phrase
gun “safety” zealots
and then asking how much safer each victim was because they had no gun.
Carpitect
January 18, 2013 at 3:18 pm
The “Gun Safety Zealots” all live in bubbles and or affluent neighborhoods where the police do the job of protecting, sometimes, well in the case of Dr. Petit, the cops showed up too late. This creates their mistaken belief that guns need to be taken out of the hands of law abiding citizens. In their minds and experience, guns are only needed by the proper authorities. However, if you use the Bronx as an example, and look at violent crimes against innocents there. What good are the police in protecting the innocent? Actually in the Bronx some police have the belief that the residents deserve what they are getting for living there. Not all cops behave that way but some do. Most police rather provide the citizens with parking tickets to prove that they are doing their jobs. I lived in the Norwood section of the Bronx for 10 years, gun shots in the neighborhood were a monthly occurrence, and this was considered a good section of the Bronx mind you. The last year we lived here there were two , now cold case murders. One victim was shot to death while warming his car at 6am on a Sunday. Nothing has come of it to date. This neighborhood is an example that begs the question of how will restricting assault weapons help? In this area almost all gun crimes are with handguns. How has NY’s most restrictive handgun laws prevented the crimes occurring here? It has not do anything except to restrict how citizens can protect themselves. Thats what the gun safety zealots have done. They keep themselves, of who are already safe, while victimizing others.
Dep801
January 20, 2013 at 11:16 am
Remember, if it’s an off duty LEO who gets mugged, and shoots the perp – He’s a hero who saved the neighborhood from a dangerous criminal. If it’s an armed citizen, even under exactly the same circumstances, the perp suddenly becomes known as the victim, and his demise is a blow to the whole community.
addictedtodrugs
January 31, 2013 at 10:01 am
You think women would like to arm themselves? Isn’t it more likely that the criminal guy gets their own gun before women?
Maybe?
Are there other alternatives?
Pepper spray maybe? Allong with a little kung fu?
No?
Gun is the answer?
Betty
October 2, 2017 at 9:01 am
Here’s an answer. Research what our country’s “gun controls” were back before the first “mass shooting” that wasn’t designated as a “serial killer” shooting and repeal current gun laws back to that time. On top of that, look at the mental health programs that were in place back then and let’s re-inact those so that we can identify people who need help & get it to them before something else happens. Become a loving and inclusive nation and find out why people “radicalize” and give them friendship, help and education before they do so. I dislike the phrase “…guns kill people.” Because in reality, that gun will sit there and do nothing on its own. People kill people by pulling the trigger.
Nicolas von Schatz
November 16, 2013 at 1:36 am
The unarmed society is always doomed to degrade to ape level where only big fist rules.
nick pettit
May 1, 2014 at 7:06 pm
Bobo
January 18, 2015 at 6:11 am
I realize this is an old article, but if it were me, I’d change one thing in this sentence:
“Everyone of these situations occurred when a smaller, weaker, or outnumbered victim was violently attacked. A gun in their hands would have been an equalizer to the roving animals of this world that walk upon two legs”
That one thing is the word Would….I would change that to COULD because if the victims in these cases had No Situational Awareness to go along with their defensive firearm (not to mention the proper training and foretitude to use it), they more then likely still would have ended up in a bad way because they wouldn’t have had the chance to use it.