Guns guns guns

A few years ago there were big discussions about Republicans dropping the ban on guns in the state house.  Now with Democrats once again in the majority, they with a few "republicans" (Vaillancourt, Fields, Crawford, Gargasz, Kidder, and Lockwood) reinstated this do nothing ban which amounts to nothing more then a feel good measure which does nothing to improve safety in the state house and everything to prevent law abiding citizens from being free to have the ability to defend themselves should they need it.

I'd like to revisit several points made in the article I wrote back then, as they are just as valid today as they were then.

Despite no evidence to support it they claim this is going to lead to some kind of wild west shoot out with women and children being caught in the crossfire.  Not to mention the continue to spread the myth that the gun ban itself actually created some level of protection that isn't there today.

This continues to be the most irrational argument the left continues to push.  I can point to story after story of armed criminals stopped by law abiding citizens using their legally owned weapons to defend themselves and others.

When I searched on "hit by crossfire" the stories that came up were all drug related shoot outs.  There was one story about a man who shot at 3 armed intruders in his apartment and a bullet passed into his neighbors apartment but no one, other then the intruders, was hit.

So despite the hundreds of stories showing people have been able to stop criminals when they themselves are armed and the lack of evidence of wild west shoot outs in the streets, the left continues to raise this as a valid concern.

And as I pointed out in my prior article: "Just look at the shooting of Congress woman Gabbey as an example, the person who eventually tackled the shooter was an armed citizen.  He said in a TV interview that he did not shoot because he didn't have a clear shot and worried he may have hit someone."

There was never a metal detector in the state house so unless it was obvious that someone had a gun on them this rule was never actually enforced in the first place.  On top of that, the guard at the door to the state house was unarmed.  If someone with a gun intending to harm others came through and refused to stop for the guard, their response would be to call in the state police.  By the time the police arrive and get into the building, any shooting that may have taken place would be over.

To this day there remains no metal detector and as the new ban was discussed, no plan to put in a metal detector was brought up.

Even if there were one though, I would think history has shown that an armed criminal will not be stopped by simple measures.  In the school in Sandy Hook, they had locked down doors and a waiting area that required you to be buzzed in before you could enter.  What good did it do?  The madman had over 20 minutes before the first armed police officer entered the school.

...Democrats in NH have wasted no time attempting to use anything and everything to get their way and since there aren't any factual arguments supporting the gun ban they've resorted to gut emotions and the old argument that it's "for the children".

Now the teachers union has gotten involved and some school districts have begun cancelling field trips or insisting that parents sign permission slips with warning that guns may be present.  My response... are you kidding me?

Any time a child walks outside their home they may come in contact with someone carrying a gun. 

I know personally an employee at a NH "educational farm" that has school trips constantly and this guy conceal carries a weapon every day.  When I asked him why, he said it wasn't because he feared mad gunmen would storm the farm but because working with animals, even semi domesticated ones like pigs and cows, there is a risk that they may go wild and could harm someone.  Also since the farm is located in a heavily wooded area there is always a risk of wild animals from the outside coming into the farm and attacking either the other animals or the people at the farm.

When you and your children walk in the mall or in a store it is highly likely you are walking past people conceal carrying a firearm.  Even in museums or historical sights you will very likely be passing people carrying weapons on their person.  Even in local town libraries I've known people and even librarians themselves who conceal weapons.

This irrational reaction is implying that now at the state house kids would risk coming in contact with someone carrying makes one believe that no where else in the state would anyone dare carry a weapon.  Thinking people understand that's not true.

So following their irrational logic of cancelling trips or sending out warnings about the possibility of someone somewhere carrying a weapon near little Jimmy and extend that to everywhere outside a school building?  If the state house has suddenly become such a dangerous place then it's only logical that the mall, library, educational farm, historical sights and everywhere else that does not have an implicit gun ban in place is also dangerous and all outside trips to these places as well should be cancelled at once.

The "for the children" argument continues to reign supreme with the left even today as once again we heard the argument that children tour the state house.

Wouldn't you think that if a legislative body is going to act on something they would want to actually accomplish something?  I guess not when you consider how many "feel good" bills pass every year on all levels of government.