Pretty straightforward, eh? History and statistics (honest ones, at least) prove that disarming law-abiding people increases the incidence of crime, while relaxing gun laws almost always brings down the crime rate.
Here, Ted Nugent gives his thoughts on the concept of innocent, law-abiding citizens having to go unarmed while criminals universally ignore gun laws along with their particular favorite crime. Just how much loss, pain and suffering is the victim required to sustain from the predator?
Thanks to Mr. Nugent, YouTube and KLRU.
Sounds a little harsh - until you consider the innocent, productive victims, minding their own business when attacked by their repeat (really, they are all repeat offenders, past present or future - - no one accidentally or mistakenly rapes, robs or murders anyone, or "tries just one") offenders. He gets 'rights' and the law-abiding victim is reduced to just be one of his victims. What amount of loss is the victim REQUIRED to sustain from the predator?
Solution? Allow law-abiding citizens to carry weapons if they are comfortable with them. Let the predators know that a high percentage of the populace is armed, willing and permitted to defend themselves and their neighbors. Shoot the attacker until he stops being a threat, provide first aid and prosecution as necessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be reasonably polite, but especially be as accurate as you can. Provide sources if you have them. We might as well learn something. [Wikipedia and blogs are usually 'pointers', not authoritative sources; they indicate data that might be confirmed elsewhere (that's how I use them here)].