Control by Glenn Beck Read Free Book Online Page B

holding the restaurant manager hostage, fired at Terry, grazing him. Terry returned fire, killing him as well. Two bad guys dead, all of the good guys still alive.
    In 2008,a man entered the Player’s Bar & Grille in Winnemucca, Nevada. He shot two people from a family he was feuding with. Would he have shot others? We’ll never know. A forty-eight-year-old man who was dining at the restaurant pulled out his handgun, which he was lawfully carrying with a Nevada license, and shot the attacker dead.
    In 2012, just two days before the Sandy Hook murders, a potential mass murderer was stopped in an Oregon mall. The twenty-two-year-old man, who came armed with an AR-15, several loaded magazines, and a load-bearing vest, opened fire, killing two people with his first three shots. Witnesses say he fired at least sixty shots. The sheriff later said thatthe man’s intention was to shoot “anyone in his line of sight . . . . ”
    While most people were running away, twenty-two-year-old Nick Meli, who was shopping with a friend and her baby, drew his licensed, concealed handgun. ButMeli didn’t fire right away, as he was concerned about missing the gunman and hitting an innocent bystander.
    When the killer turned and saw Meli’s gun aimed squarely at him he fired one more shot . . . right into his own head.There were estimated to be ten thousand people in the mall that day.
    Did any of the people in these incidents absolutely, without a doubt, prevent additional deaths? It’s impossible to know or to prove something that did not happen. The evidence says yes, and common sense tells us that there are probably many, many incidents that have been stopped that will never make it into any kind of national statistic. However, one thing is completely sure: contrary to what the controllists tell us, all of the people who had a gun in these incidents impacted their situation in a positive way. They didn’t fire wildly into the air, or confuse the police, or have their gun taken from them and used by the killer—all things that we are told to expect when more people have guns.
REGARDLESS, IF WE REALLY WANT TO STOP GUN MASSACRES WE NEED TO BRING BACK THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN.
    SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA):
    December 17, 2012: “On the first day of the new Congress, I intend to introduce a [Federal Assault Weapons] bill stopping the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of assault weapons as well as large ammunition magazines, stripsand drums that hold more than 10 rounds.”
    January 24, 2013: “I believe this bill is a big step toward ending the mass shootings that have devastated families across the country—from Newtown to Aurora, from Tucson to Virginia Tech,from Columbine to Oak Creek.”
    Dianne Feinstein might want to listen to Vice President Joe Biden, who, after meeting with Democratic senators about various gun control legislation, said, “Nothing we’re going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting . . . ”
    Despite debating gun control for decades, Senator Feinstein (who was also the author of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban) refuses to accept reality: assault weapons bans do absolutelynothing, because “assault” weapons are not functionally different from any other semi-automatic weapons. More on that in a minute, but first let’s look at the evidence.
    Feinstein points to two studies by criminology professors Chris Koper and Jeffrey Roth for the National Institute of Justice to back up her contention that the previous ban reduced crime. On her website about the 2013 assault weapons banshe references a part of a 1997 study that, on its own, seems to be pretty conclusive: “Our best estimate of the impact of the ban on state level gun homicide rates is that itcaused a reduction of 6.7% in gun murders in 1995 relative to a projection of recent trends.”
    It’s unfortunate that Feinstein stopped reading after that sentence. After all, if