Via email:

From: David Burnett [mailto:media@concealedcampus.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 8:23 AM
Subject: Shooting Highlights Fallacy of “Gun-Free” Schools

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Shooting Highlights Fallacy of “Gun-Free” Schools

April 3, 2012 — Seven students were gunned down yesterday morning in California on the same day that a national protest began to raise awareness about students being left helpless against such murderers.

The national Empty Holster Protest, organized by Students for Concealed Carry, involves students strapping on empty holsters to illustrate their defenselessness at the hands of college gun bans. The event runs through April 6 and involves hundreds of college campuses across the US.

“This is a poignant and ironic example of the very thing we’re protesting,” said David Burnett, the group’s spokesman.
“Colleges invite these shootings by guaranteeing criminals their victims will be disarmed. It takes more than signs to fend off killers.”

Although the details of the massacre are still unclear, it remains apparent that prohibitions against firearms were completely ineffective. Over 20 such college shootings have occurred on so-called “gun-free” campuses since 2001. At the same time, more than 200 campuses in six states allow students to carry handguns to class without experiencing any such rampages.

“Gun-free zones are defense-free zones,” said Burnett. “Since our colleges can’t guarantee our safety, it’s time for them to allow us a fighting chance and decriminalize self-defense.”

A PDF version of this press release is available at:
http://scc.gs/HEXF5S

Media resources available at: http://concealedcampus.org/media

CONTACT:

David Burnett, Director of Public Relations

Students for Concealed Carry

david.burnett@concealedcampus.org

859-576-7522

ABOUT:

Students for Concealed Carry is a national, non-partisan, grassroots organization comprised of over 40,000 supporters which advocates for legal concealed carry on college campuses.

I don’t have anything to add other than I think the college administrators and state legislators that created these victim disarmament zones should be prosecuted for conspiracy to deny civil rights under the color of law with particular attention paid to the following:

…if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section … shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Perhaps if a few of these people are in jail awaiting trial with the possibility of a death sentence others will be a little less eager to infringe upon the specific enumerated rights guaranteed by our Bill of Rights.

There is only one question I want answered at this point. There might be more questions once I get the answer but I suspect I’ll know all I need to know with that one answer. I would like to think that answer would enough for everyone else as well but for the people chanting for Zimmerman’s arrest and those putting up “dead or alive” rewards for Zimmerman little things like facts probably won’t make much of a difference.

I strongly suspect Zimmerman is innocent of a crime. I need one more fact to convince me it was a lawful use of deadly force or that we cannot know the answer.

It is possible that Zimmerman instigated the confrontation in such a way that Martin attacked him. Taunting or “picking a fight” with Martin would have Zimmerman sharing a significant amount of responsibility in the death of Martin. But I have heard zero reports of a beginning to the confrontation in this manner. Hence I am of the opinion it did not happen this way or that as long as Zimmerman does not change his story we will never know about it.

I realize the police can’t always be trusted that concern is usually associated with the facts in regard to police conduct, the conduct of those with significant political power, or the conduct of groups being discriminated against. In the case of Zimmerman I don’t think there is any particular reason to believe the police are “fact challenged”. I realize witnesses can be mistaken and/or have a bias. If possible I would like to be able to reach a conclusion based entirely upon physical evidence that is difficult to convincingly fake in a timely manner without getting caught. Hence the particular facts that I think are most relevant are:

• The grass stain on the back of Zimmerman’s shirt
• Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose, had a swollen lip and had bloody cuts to the back of his head—presumably with matching blood on the sidewalk
• There have been no reports (correct me if I am wrong on this) that Martin had physical injuries beyond a single gunshot wound to the chest

The one question I have that will probably settle the issue for me is when the authorities said, “Zimmerman then shot Martin once in the chest at very close range”; What was that range? I’ve probably spent more time and money than most on learning about such things and if the investigators know what they are doing, and I have no reason to believe they don’t, then they should be able to determine that range quite accurately. If the range was under 12 inches they can probably determine the range to within a fraction of an inch. And of course the angle can be determine quite closely as well.

If the range is determined to be within six inches and the bullet path matches Zimmerman’s story then I have to conclude the two were in a fight at contact distance and Zimmerman was losing badly. If I were on a jury I would insist that Zimmerman was in reasonable fear of imminent permanent physical injury or death and was justified in using deadly force to protect himself.

End of story for me.