Don B. Kates wrote a great article titled Gun control restricts those least likely to commit violent crimes:
The March 21 murder of four Oakland police officers by Lovelle Mixon, a convicted felon wanted for a recent parole violation, epitomizes the futility of “gun control,” or the banning and restricting of gun ownership for law-abiding adults. Using the officers’ tragic deaths to further an unrelated agenda — stripping away the Second Amendment rights of honorable citizens — is both harmful and distracting.Mixon was not an anomaly. Felons commit over 90 percent of murders, with the remainder carried out primarily by juveniles and the mentally unbalanced . . .Notably, only 15 percent of all Americans have criminal records, yet more than 90 percent of murder suspects have a history of crime . . .Naïve, well-meaning people often respond to such facts with, “Still, wouldn’t this be a better world without guns?” After many years of studying guns as a highly effective method of self-defense, I reply, no, the world would be immeasurably worse off without the only weaponry that gives the weak a real chance against predators. After all, there was a time, hundreds of years ago, when there were no guns. Without guns for self-defense, survival was measured by the strength of men’s arms, as women, children and the elderly huddled in terror, escaping only by abject submission to their predators . . .Don B. Kates is a research fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland and a criminologist and former professor of criminal and constitutional law.
Check out the full article.
Subscribe
7 comments:
Very interesting blog! I like how you focus on one specific subject. I am a student whom has a news-only political blog at www.electiongazette.com. Please check it out!
Dustin:
A marvelous article.
Then again, many of us been saying that for quite some time.
But it's ALWAYS nice to see a person with some initials AFTER his name say it...that NEVER gets old.
B.G.
Definitely!
Great post! Too funny!!
Would you like a Link Exchange with our blog COMMON CENTS? Check us out here...
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
Good article except for the part which basically describes those who choose use a firearm for self defense as " weak ". Maybe my interpretation of the way that term is used is wrong?
I'm a law abiding citizen.I don't bully others. I workhard, give to worth while charaties, and try to help others were I can.
I love my family and my country and value my freedoms and would fight with my last ounce of strength ( and last bullet as well) to preserve all of this.
These are my strengths,not my weaknesess. And if the time ever arrives where I find myself standing between an assailant and my family, it will be with a .45 in my hand.
It is those that seek to do me harm that are truly the "weak" ones.They lack the morality and the decency to be able to live among us as contributors to our society.They may be physically stronger than me, but that is where it ends.
To those who think a world without guns would be better think of it this way:
Guns protect the "weak" from the strong. The "weak" are able to survive. They seek out others who are "weak, reproduce and create more "weaklings". And without these "weaklings" there would be no "Liberals".So without guns to provide protection, "Liberals" and "Liberalism" would eventually become extinct. Damm you Charles Darwin!!
That one was for Bob G. Hope you LYAO.
Good thoughts Eric. I don't believe the author actually intended to say that gun owners are weak, but rather that without guns leveling the playing field, in the age before guns were invented, it was only size & strength that gave anyone the ability to rob, rape, plunder, or take advantage of others. Now that the playing field has been leveled out with the existence of guns nobody enjoys an upper hand based on strength of the arm alone.
Like the old saying goes, God made mankind, Sam Colt made them equal.
Post a Comment