http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/20/AR2010022003376_3.html?hpid=artslot
"The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I get it.
This guy doesn't get it. He thinks you should trust - and depend upon for your safety - cops and polticians and take your chances with the crazies who won't obey the laws and will have guns.
"But to Peter Nickles, the District's attorney general, allowing handguns to be kept in homes in one of the most dangerous cities in the country was bad enough. Permitting people to pack heat while they walk around -- amid presidential motorcades, foreign dignitaries, public protests -- is downright crazy, he says. And it makes already difficult police work even harder."
This guy gets it: "The thugs chased Palmer, who stopped under a streetlight and pulled out his gun.
"I did not say anything witty or clever," he recalls. "In the movies, they say something very clever. I just said, 'If you come closer, I will kill you.' Very blunt. And they stopped."
He is convinced that if he hadn't had a gun he would be dead. Even though the legal weapon was not fired, "it did the job it was intended to do. It evened up the odds from a gang of young men who thought it would be really fun to beat to death two (gay) guys walking down the street.""
John Lott's research indicates this scenario is repeated approximately 500,000 times annually. That is to say, brandishing a gun stops a half million acts of violence annually without any shots being fired. That's one reason why the stats that show it is more dangerous to have a gun in the house than not are biased - they do not count all the times that guns 'defend' a potential victim just by being in the victims' hands (and really that's just the beginning of why those stats are biased).
No comments:
Post a Comment