Why "Gun Free" School Zones Endanger Children

Lifted from Christian Action Network's news site:

Counselor’s personal firearm foils terror attack

If guns kill people, then a high school counselor’s personal firearm foiled a terror attack at an Israeli kibbutz Thursday

Israel Insider staff reported Friday, Jan. 25, on a two-man Islamic jihad death squad taken out by armed counselors at a kibbutz high school library in Gush Etzion, southeast of Jerusalem.

The men were dressed to appear like Israeli Defense Force security protectors, and succeeded in infiltrating the yeshiva high school with guns and knives - one gun was found to be a fake after the take-down.

Credit the gun? Or credit the heroic counselor? It all depends on your philosophy of gun rights - and wrongs. Either way, credit Israeli preparedness against terrorism targeting schools.

Wielding guns and knives, they lightly injured two Israeli counselors before being shot dead.

The terrorists infiltrated Makor Haim, a kibbutz [Israeli community], sneaking into the main building of its high school seminary, run by world-renowned Talmudist, Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz.

The terrorists entered a library room where seven of the boarding school's counselors were meeting…[and] ordered the seven to line up on one side of the room.

A counselor, realizing they were terrorists, drew his personal firearm and opened fire.
Another grabbed the fake gun from the other terrorist, wrestled him to the floor, while the first counselor shot him. The terrorists managed to stab two of the counselors before falling dead.

At the same time, the Beit Medrash (study hall) -- adjacent to the library -- was packed with students taking part in the weekly Thursday night "mishmar" all-night Torah study session, Israel National News reported.

An army official praised the quick response of the students and their counselors. "This could have ended much worse," a source in the Central Command said.

Note to school board: if we care about our kids, we will be likewise prepared - one day we will care, one day we will prepare this way; it’s just a matter of if terrorist attacks in America will precede our rising to the occasion.

The Ohio legislature and various school administrator (think Virginia Tech) do not intentionally endanger our children, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. That facts are that the defensive use of guns is what gun free zones really prohibit.

Gun Control Kills

How can United States citizens be safer from gun crimes? Any legislator that actually researches the statistics must conclude that the right of citizens to carry arms for their defense discourages crime.

The economist John Lott is the foremost economist that has compiled, studied and analyzed the statistic. His methods have never been successfully criticized. He is the author of More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns.

The bottom line conclusions are quite clear: gun control kills people. The right to carry guns protects them from injury and death.

In the United Kingdom, 53% of burglaries occur while the homeowner is home. The statistic in the US: 16%. Why? The UK bans all gun ownership, including in the home. In the US, criminals worry about getting killed in an occupied dwelling, so they do a better job of making sure their target is empty.

The pointy headed administrators at Virginia Tech have the blood of 36 professors and students on their hands by making Virginia Tech safe for nut case gun men, that is, designating the campus a so-called "gun free" zone.

Ohio enacted concealed carry laws in 2004. Ohio has a way to go, though. Ohio's law makes churches dangerous places to be, because they are presumptive gun free zones. Anyone carrying a concealed gun to church needs permission from the church. Are churches safe? Ask the folks at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs where a parishioner/voluntary fired her concealed handgun to stop a not case gun man from killing more people (he had already killed four). Ohio needs to fix this dangerous situation by deleting the presumptive gun free zones in churches.

Gun control kills. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend and protect themselves and others.

Free Speech in Canada: Dead? Or Dying?

Is free speech dead in Canada? We have examples.

Most recently, the Alberta Human Rights Commission held a hearing on a complaint that a magazine published the famous Muhammed cartoons. The publisher, Ezra Levant in a video recorded hearing gave an impassioned defense of speech, but made the excellent point that merely by holding a hearing, the Canadian government is punishing the publication which, after all, had to take the time from its business to defend itself, to pay for lawyers, and the take the risk that the government would punish it further. Watch the several videos here. Listen to and watch the hearing officer. Chilling.

This is not the only outrage by the Alberta Human Rights Commission. In November 2007, the Human Rights Commission punished a an individual who had written a letter to the editor to the effect hat the homosexual agenda advanced by Alberta schools was bad for children. The grossly misnamed Alberta Human Rights Commission found that it, as the government, had the right to assure that opinions be expressed only responsibly and that it had the power to judge when a contrary opinion was responsible expressed. Hard to believe? Read it yourself. See page 74.

In Toronto, as we write, McMaster University, a formerly Baptist school, has sued Paul L. Williams for defamation, because Dr. Williams wrote about his research that showed that one or more jihadists had been at the university and may have gained access to nuclear material sufficient for a dirty bomb. Canadian law does not recognize the sorts of defenses to defamation we have in the United States on matters of great public interest. The defendant in Canadian courts has the burden to prove the truth of allegedly defamatory statements.

In America, we used to think of Canada as a free country. No longer.

More CAIR Dissimulation

When it comes to dissimulation, the folks at CAIR really have no equal. The recent op-ed piece in the always suspect San Francisco Chronicle by the San Francisco area CAIR director is a case in point. The piece responds to the excruciatingly accurate op-ed by Cinnamon Stillwell regarding the Michael Savage suit against CAIR.

Unfortunately, the evil subtleties make arguments such as those in Ms. Ibrahim’s article a challenge to dissect, but here goes.

Cinnamon Stillwell's recent column in SF Gate, "Savage vs. CAIR: The battle over free speech" on Dec. 19 offers a holiday assortment of misleading truths and omissions of facts. In her misguided defense of the "Savage Nation" radio show, Stillwell essentially defends anarchistic hate against minority groups including African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Muslims, Catholics, Jews, immigrants and women. She does so under the pretense of defending free speech.

Of course, most elementary school students will tell you that hate speech is not to be confused with free speech.

Ms. Ibrahim’s understanding of the First Amendment is on the level of an elementary school student evidently, because her statement is absolutely wrong. Free speech includes hate speech. It does. It is a fact. “Hate speech” if it exists, is punishable or prohibitable only if coupled with an otherwise illegal act. Of course, that begs the point. Michael Savage’s speech certainly opposes Muslim misbehavior and CAIR’s misbehavior, but it is not in any real sense hate speech. Calling anything hate speech is the new version of calling someone a racist. No real factual basis is necessary. It is about repeating the lie, over and over and over.

Is Stillwell arguing that the incitement of violence against minorities is protected under free speech, or did she just never chance upon the numerous times Savage has advocated hateful acts against other minority groups.

It cannot possibly be the latter because Savage's record is out there for all to see. In 2004, Savage stated "I think (Muslims) need to be forcibly converted to Christianity ... It's the only thing that can probably turn them into human beings." In 2006, he called for a ban on Muslim immigration and recommended making "the construction of mosques illegal in America." Also that year, he advocated "kill(ing) 100 million" Muslims.

Context is everything. Of course based upon the behavior that so many engage in the then name of Islam, behavior notably absent from Christianity, conversion of Muslims to Christianity would certainly bring more peace with freedom. Of course the Muslim misbehavior hardly needs repeating: murdering 3000 people on 9/11, advocating death to converts from Islam; death fatwas for authors (Salman Rushdie); cartoon riots; French riots; the murder of Van Gogh and others; terrorist plots throughout the United States (fortunately thwarted; running terrorist training comps in the United States (Jamaat ul-fuqra) and on and on. The advocacy of killing Muslims was not that at all, but CAIS does not care about context. It would hurt the dissimulation.

CAIR, along with all major American Muslim organizations, has consistently condemned terrorism in all its forms, including attacks against Israeli civilians. A section on CAIR's Web site includes comprehensive information that demystifies the list of recycled smears and distortions used by Stillwell to defame CAIR. The fact that CAIR comes under attack by the likes of Stillwell and Savage is no surprise to anyone who works for positive social change. All proponents of justice have faced similar attacks designed to silence their voices. [Broken link in original.]

CAIR refuses to condemn Hamas which engages in terrorist attacks on Israel. Why? CAIR was founded by Hamas.

These smear campaigns aim at marginalizing Muslims in America by silencing one of the most prominent and respected American Muslim voices. It can be demonstrated that the sources of fabricated allegations, distortions, and smears against CAIR are recycled repeatedly by the same Islamophobes.

This is simply outrageous. Name-calling without facts. Nothing by Michael Savage or anyone else in America as sought to silence Muslim voices. CAIR respected? Hardly. Remember, these are the folks who supported the lawsuit against innocent air travelers who reported suspicious behavior in the lying flying imams case in Mineapolis. The only purpose of such a suit was to make the skies friendlier for terrorists and to intimidate folks into ignoring the government’s “see something, say something” program.

Stillwell goes further to attack CAIR for having been listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the recent case involving the Muslim charity the Holy Land Foundation and its alleged financial ties to the Palestinian terrorist group turned terrorist government Hamas. However, she omitted that after a record 19 days of deliberation, a jury in Dallas did not return even one guilty verdict on almost 200 charges brought against officials of the HLF Muslim charity.

One HLF case juror told the Associated Press, "I thought they were not guilty across the board." Juror William Neal added that the case "was strung together with macaroni noodles. There was so little evidence." He said the government "really used fear" to try to sway the jury.

The press reports were to the effect that one juror (the juror to which CAIR refers) improperly bullied to other jurors. A nut got on the jury and cost everyone lots of time and money. There was no acquittal. There was a mistrial. Expect a new trial and expect convictions. The truth is that Holy Land Foundation and other Muslim charities gave money to help widows – of suicide bombers. The message in the Middle East: martyr yourself for Allah, attain paradise (and all those virgins), and we will take care of your widow.

Yet another misleading untruth by Stillwell is her assertion that CAIR receives money from "Saudi funding." This is yet another attempt to invent a controversy. CAIR's operational budget is funded by donations from American Muslims and philanthropist grants.

“Philanthropist grants?” Uh, Saudi money, maybe?

CAIR remains an open and transparent organization.

Which would explain why journalist unsympathetic to CAIR support of terrorism are excluded from CAIR press conferences.

CAIR is a truly horrible organization. In my opinion, no CAIR official is worthy of belief. Here in Ohio, a CAIR official attempted to justify its continued support for a convicted terrorist on the grounds that it had oppose the "material support for terrorism" of the Patriot Act. Of course, that ignore that fact that the convicted admittted that he was planning a terrorist attack.

CAIR's apparent motto: Muslims uber alles. Or my Muslim, right or wrong. Or maybe, Muslims can do no wrong.