The Charleston, South Carolina church massacre took place in a “gun-free” zone

In South Carolina, law abiding citizens with a concealed carry permit are allowed to carry their legal, concealed handguns in public.

However, South Carolina Code Ann.§ 23-31-215 prohibits them from carrying their guns in “churches or other religious sanctuaries.”

This “gun-free” zone did not prevent Dylann Storm Roof from murdering nine innocent people, but it did prevent those innocent people from being allowed to defend themselves.

One of the survivors claims that Roof stopped shooting to reload five different times. If just one other person in that church had had a gun, they could have stopped him. But self defense is illegal in churches in South Carolina, so there was no one with a gun to stop him.

The presence or absence of an armed, law abiding citizen can be the difference between the Charlie Hebdo massaacre in France, where 12 people were murdered,  and the Curtis Culwell Center attack in Texas, where zero people were murdered. Both incidents happened earlier this year, and both involved armed Msulim terrorists who tried to murder people for drawing pictures of Muhammad. Those two incidents were pretty much identical, except in the first incident, 12 people were murdered, and in the second incident, zero people were murdered, because an armed, law abiding citizen prevented such a massacre. (Although one of the people who was murdered in the French incident was a police officer, he was actually unarmed.)

If any supporters of more gun control think I am wrong about this comparison – if you have some other explanation for why 12 people were murdered in the first incident while zero people were murdered in the second incident – please explain it, because I would like to hear it.

Even the biggest supporters of gun control admit that guns can be used for self defense. For example, I know that Barack Obama is a huge supporter of gun control, because when he was a state Senator in Illinois, he voted against allowing people in their own homes to use guns to protect themselves and their families from rapists and murderers. However, I also know that Obama admits that guns can be used for self defense, because as U.S. President, he signed a bill that provides armed guards to himself and his wife for the rest of the lives. Also, after a petition at whitehouse.gov called for turning the White House into a “gun-free” zone, Obama rejected the proposal.

Likewise, other gun control hypocrites who are protected by armed guards include Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell.

Since even the biggest supporters of “gun-free” zones make exceptions for certain “important” people, I don’t see why people who are “less important” don’t deserve to be allowed to have the same kind of protection.