Armed churchgoer prevents slaughter – Says gun-free zones are dangerous

Image

Armed churchgoer prevents slaughter (Reprint from WND)
‘History and common sense prove that gun-free zones are dangerous’


Charl Van Wyk, who carried a gun to a church service, shot back at terrorists bent on mass slaughter and ultimately was credited with saving hundreds of lives, says politicians should rise above the “politically correct” and do what’s right to save the lives of children and teachers.

Weighing in on the current debate in America over the public’s access to self-defense, he told WND that only in a “sheer utopian fantasy” would people expect that “homicidal maniacs” would follow gun laws.

“In Israel teachers and parents, serving as school aides, are armed at all times on school grounds, with semi-automatic weapons. Since this policy was adopted in the 1970s, attacks by gunmen at schools in Israel have ceased,” he said.

“In 2004 Thailand adopted a similar approach for safety of children. It may be politically incorrect, but it does have the advantage of saving the lives of innocent children and teachers. The policy? Encouraging teachers to carry firearms.” he continued.

“On 27 April 2004, the Associated Press reported, ‘Interior Minister Bhokin Bhalakula ordered provincial governors to give teachers licenses to buy guns if they want to even though it would mean bringing firearms into the classrooms when the region’s 925 schools reopen May 17 after two months of summer holiday.’

“Though Thailand’s government is extremely hostile to gun ownership in general, it has recognized that teachers ought to be able to safeguard their students and themselves,” he said.

“Maybe we can learn something from these countries.”

Currently, the Obama administration is offering numerous proposals to ban certain weapons, certain types and generally make the public’s access to firearms more difficult.

Van Wyk’s own story of self-defense – and the defense of the innocent – dates to July 25, 1993 – the day that would become known as the day of the St. James Massacre. That was when terrorists invaded the St. James Church in South Africa with automatic weapons. About a dozen members of the congregation were killed, and dozens more were injured.

But the terrorists fled when Van Wyk, who was carrying a handgun with him, returned fire, injuring one terrorist.

Van Wyk was recognized by authorities with a commendation for his actions, which likely saved dozens, if not hundreds, of lives.


His story is told in “Shooting Back” The Right and Duty of Self-Defense,” both book and DVD versions.

Van Wyk notes that the commander of the church attackers, Letlapa Mphahlele, later said, “There we thought that the church was a ‘gun free zone,’ but boy did he (van Wyk) have a surprise for us!”

“U.S. school shooting incidents prove that proclaiming gun-free zones at learning institutions does not prohibit homicidal maniacs from entering these premises. In fact, expecting such an individual to honor a law prohibiting firearms is sheer utopian fantasy,” van Wyk told WND.

“History and common sense prove that gun-free zones are dangerous,” he said. “Do mass shootings ever occur in police stations, on shooting ranges or at gun shows? Mass murderers select soft targets for their acts of violence.

“Declaring gun-free zones, risks leaving potential victims defenseless,” he said. “Gun-free zones merely make the working environment of the criminals safer.”

He said any move eliminate Americans’ access to self-defense should be opposed.

“We need to refuse to support any laws that leave us defenseless against murderers, robbers, rapists and arsonists.”

“We, as Christian gun owners, do not put our trust in our guns, but in God. A firearm is merely a tool that can be used for righteous purposes, like the protection of life, or negative i.e. violent means. ‘Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the Name of the Lord our God.’ Psalm 20:7,” van Wyk said.

He noted Oliver Cromwell’s advice to troops at the Battle of Edgehill in 1642, “‘Put your trust in God, my boys, but mind to keep your powder dry.'”

Van Wyk said it is “by God’s grace” that he has survived two violent attacks with guns.

The first was the terror attack on the church, and the second an attempted car-jacking.

“In both cases the gun in my hand was far more useful than a cop of the phone,” he said.

He also said the simple logic of self-defense supports access to weapons.

“People often blame guns for crime, as if crime did not exist before guns were invented,” he said. “I’d far rather be armed and never need my gun, than need a gun and not have one.”

And he said the suddenness of such attacks leaves only one option for protection.

“The only person who can make any difference when faced with a violent attacker is the person who is right THERE, right THEN,” he said.

In a letter to the editor van Wyk wrote after he fended off two armed robbers who were trying to carjack him, he said, “Some believe that an armed response to this type of tyranny will only escalate the violence. Not so – an armed response actually diffused the attack and my two passengers and I are, by God’s grace, blessed to still be alive.”

“Instant response to a life-threatening situation is always best – ‘the clean up team’ are just that, ‘the clean up team’. The police cannot be everywhere, all the time, to protect you,” he continued.

He previously noted that self-defense is biblical.

“Sometimes we also read into Scripture that which is not taught, e.g., ‘But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also’ (Matthew 5:39). This is dealing with our response to a personal insult. It should not be read to mean: ‘If someone murders your wife, let him murder your child too.’ The Bible clearly teaches, ‘A righteous man who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well’ (Proverbs 25:26). Surely we would be ‘faltering before the wicked’ if we cannot protect worshipers in a church!”

“Besides the mother’s womb, gun-free zones are the most dangerous places on earth,” he said, and he argues strict gun control actually lead to more crime.

“At the end of the day, we need to be prepared to defend ourselves. The only person who can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun; nobody else will be of much help,” he said.

Obama to Top Brass: Will you fire on American Citizens?

Image

This is going viral on the Internet.  Don’t know how credible the source is, but Obama’s actions do not make me disbelieve it.  A number of high ranking military leaders have been removed from their positions recently, and people are wondering why.  In addition to the litmus test revelation, there are a few observations about China that you should be aware of.

Very profound argument against gun control

Image

Gun Control

Gun Control (Photo credit: cgulyas2002)

THIS IS A VERY PROFOUND ARGUMENT AGAINST GUN CONTROL

THE BEST WORDED PRO-GUN ARGUMENT I HAVE EVER READ

As the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against the Chicago , IL Gun Ban, this man offered you another stellar example of a letter (written by a Marine), that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society.

Interesting take and one you don’t hear much. . .. . . .

Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the letter….

“The Gun Is Civilization” by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception.

Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats.

The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

So, the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

Harvard study: True facts about gun control and violence

Image

Conservatives base their decisions on facts, Liberals base their decisions on politically expedient emotions and twist the facts to suit their view. Harvard can hardly be called a bastion of Conservatism, but their study supports the Conservative views on gun control.

Excerpt: International evidence and comparisons have long been offered
as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that
fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths.

Unfortunately, such discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and
factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative.
It may be useful to begin with a few examples. There is a compound
assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United
States compared with other modern developed nations, which is
why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate.
Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement
(b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so.

Since at least 1965, the false assertion that the United States has
the industrialized world’s highest murder rate has been an artifact
of politically motivated Soviet minimization designed to hide the
true homicide rates. Since well before that date, the Soviet Union possessed extremely stringent gun controls
that were effectuated by a police state apparatus providing stringent enforcement. So
successful was that regime that few Russian civilians now have
firearms and very few murders involve them. Yet, manifest success
in keeping its people disarmed did not prevent the Soviet
Union from having far and away the highest murder rate in the
developed world. In the 1960s and early 1970s, the gun‐less Soviet
Union’s murder rates paralleled or generally exceeded those
of gun‐ridden America. While American rates stabilized and then
steeply declined, however, Russian murder increased so drastically
that by the early 1990s the Russian rate was three times
higher than that of the United States. Between 1998‐2004 (the latest
figure available for Russia), Russian murder rates were nearly
four times higher than American rates. Similar murder rates also
characterize the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and various
other now‐independent European nations of the former U.S.S.R.

Thus, in the United States and the former Soviet Union transitioning
into current‐day Russia, “homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce other weapons are substituted in killings.” While American gun ownership is quite high, Table 1 shows many other developed nations (e.g., Norway, Finland, Germany, France,Denmark) with high rates of gun ownership. These countries,
however, have murder rates as low or lower than many developed
nations in which gun ownership is much rarer. For example,
Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership
of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times
higher than Germany in 2002.

Read full report here.