A step in the right direction in California

      There is some good news for gun rights advocates, (really everyone because the right to life and self-defense is good for everybody), in the fascist land of California.

     Yeah, I don't get to write that sentence very much.

     A court in San Diego struck down a law saying that self-defense was "not a good enough reason" to get a concealed carry permit:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-gun-control-san-diego-court-ruling-20140213,0,6686752.story#axzz2tGYO0eUK

     Before, you had to have another specific reason to be able to get a permit, like "I have a crazy ex-boyfriend out in the streets." So, general reasons like "I want to be able to protect my family" or "I want to exercise my right to life" would not be good enough to get a permit.

     This is a step in the right direction to reshape the narrative about gun control. Gun control is about much more than just guns. It is about people being able to exercise their basic human rights of right to life and right to self-defense. Every human in the world, regardless of race or religion, is born with these rights, among many others. When you take away someone's ability to get a concealed carry permit, you take away their ability to exercise their right to self-defense. You make them a helpless sitting duck to any criminal, psycho, mass shooter wanna be, etc, etc, the like. And this country sadly has a lot of those. You can't say "Oh, that'll never happen around where I live." Well, every single person has thought that....until it did happen.

     You cannot rely on the police. The police couldn't give a damn about you. Sure, there are some good cops, but every single cop I have met in person has been a drunk with power asshole, not caring about me at all, even when I've been the one that had called them in the first place because I was in trouble!

     You should not need a specific reason to get a concealed carry permit. You are born with natural human rights that justify getting one at any time, in any situation. When you don't allow people to get one, or have a fascist "gun free zone," you are basically saying that it's okay for anyone in that zone to die, because you're taking away their only way to defend themselves. To hell with their right to life, you're a progressive liberal who is just trying to protect people from crazy gun nuts!!!!

      Maybe California will see the light in this issue, and start to roll back all their other hundreds and hundreds of fascist gun control laws. Maybe they'll get rid of their hundreds of fascist gun free zones. Maybe, I dunno, nor does anyone else. But if they do, the liberals will fight tooth and nail on every single court case to try and make sure that doesn't happen. They are petrified of an armed citizens who knows their rights.

     Fascists usually are.

The one thing that will lessen the number and severity of mass shooting sprees

By now, the top story in every national media across the country is about the mass shooting at the Navy Yard in Washington D.C., in which Aaron Alexis killed 12 people before being killed in a shootout with police.Of course, the usual solutions are thrown around by all sorts of politicians and media pundits: more access to mental health services, better security, better background checks, stricter gun control, stricter access to violent video games and movies, etc, etc. These may change the number and severity of mass shooting sprees by 2, maybe 3%, (gun control is the only one out of the group that won't do anything). So we're not going to talk about those concepts, because their effect would be minimal. We're going to talk about the elephant in the room that people just don't want to talk about, because their liberal brainwashing demands that they look at this concept as a violent, right-wing nut job concept that is evil and would never work, statistics, examples, and logic be damned. The one rule that would lessen the number and severity of mass shooting sprees more than all the other ideas combined would be:

If all adult Americans, who can legally get their carry conceal permit, be allowed to carry conceal anywhere in the U.S., excluding obvious places like places of worship and the White House.

(Liberal butthurt haters coming in 3..2..1..)

There is a reason why most of these mass shooting sprees happen in "gun free zones." The shooters are not stupid. They know that at those locations, the vast majority of people will be helpless to stop them. The only people who can fight back are people that stand out: policemen, guards, etc. The shooter knows exactly what and where his threat is. This allows him to kill faster.

On the flip-side, let's say everyone at the Navy Yard was allowed to carry conceal. Alexis wouldn't know who is a threat and who isn't. At any moment when he is firing, someone could whip out their pistol and shoot him before he would know that he/she is there. Consider this statistic:  

There are less deaths in shooting rampages stopped by civilians because 1. They are closer, 2. The shooter cannot identify who is a threat and who isn't.  

When you do not allow someone to carry and conceal, you are taking away their right to life by taking away their right to defend themselves. You are making them near helpless and a target for any crazy person to just walk in and start shooting fish in a barrel. I work at a theater. They do not allow anyone to carry a gun in the building. If a shooter walked into the theater and started shooting up the place, I would have to take him out with my pocket knife, which would be very hard to do. Why? Because I would have to get up into him before he saw me and shoot me. Even though I am very fast, that's still next to impossible to do in a wide area such as a theater. Having a pistol on me would make it a lot easier, and, in turn, make it easier and faster for me to save lives. Even though I do not agree with the rule the theater has in place, I am a law-abiding citizen, (like the vast majority of carry conceal permit holders), and therefore, I follow it anyway. 

The notion that carry conceal makes people more aggressive, more prone to killing, or that they're just itching for a fight, is simply untrue. When I carry conceal, I don't bother anyone. I don't want to fight anyone. If a shooting occurs, you better believe that I'll fight to protect myself and other people, but if there isn't one, then I continue throughout my day as normal. How is the want to protect other innocent people viewed as itching for a fight? Are security guards itching for a fight when they carry their weapons on them? Why is it that as soon as it is a civilian carrying a weapon, suddenly our views on their intents change 180 degrees?

The notion that letting people carry conceal in a mall, for example, would make it easier for psychos to commit a mass shooting spree there is also simply untrue. If a psycho wants to bring a weapon in, he's going to, whether the law says he can or not. The law is the last thing on his mind. The only thing that permitting carry conceal will change is whether someone like me will bring one in or not, because I, unlike the criminal, follow the laws. 

In conclusion, if people were allowed to carry conceal in 99% of places around the country, that would be a real deterrent to psychos who want to commit a mass shooting spree, because it will deny them the thing that they want: to kill a bunch of people in a blaze of "glory" and be all over the newspapers. But instead, he'll think "Wow, the last 3 attempted shooting sprees have been stopped at 3, 1, and 2 victims. That might happen to me too. I guess I won't do that if there's a high chance I won't get what I want!" This will stop some of the criminals, others will still attempt no matter how many shooting sprees have been stopped quickly. But that is the reason for carry conceal; the statistic above speaks for itself: for the shooting sprees that still will happen, carry conceal drastically lowers the number of deaths.