Posted on 09/12/2006 9:32:16 AM PDT by kiriath_jearim
“Somebody tried to mug me, and I shot him,” said New Yorker Margaret Johnson after a perpetrator ripped off her necklace, choked her and tried to grab her purse, reported the New York media over the weekend.
This incident offers a graphic illustration of the need for gun ownership on the part of law-abiding American citizens.
It shows up the stupidity of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and others like him who oppose a loosening of firearm laws and seek a strengthening of such regulations.
Regardless of their intentions, the gun grabbers’ campaign against gun ownership on the part of law-abiding citizens and against the firearm industry in effect is an attack on both personal and public safety.
Guns save lives. Guns protect the innocent.
Ms. Johnson, a Harlem resident, was in a motorized scooter when she was attacked. If she did not have her .357 handgun with her and knew how to use it, she would have been an easy victim for 45-year-old Deron Johnson, who police say attacked her from behind. As it is, he wound up in Harlem Hospital Center with a single bullet wound in the elbow, and will face robbery charges.
Ms. Johnson was treated for minor injuries. Since she was on her way to a nearby gun range and has a firearm permit allowing her to keep the gun at home and carry it to and from a range, she will not be charged with any violation. Lucky for her, since it’s so difficult for even the most law-abiding citizens to obtain handgun carry permits in Bloomberg’s hoplophobic New York.
The fact of the matter is that law-abiding citizens use firearms millions of times each year in the United States to prevent crimes or to interrupt them.
According to survey material developed by criminology professor Gary Kleck of Florida State University, there are about 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year in the United States, and 1.8 million of them are defensive handgun uses.
Former resident scholar John R. Lott Jr. of the American Enterprise Institute has demonstrated that when jurisdictions enact laws enabling law-abiding citizens to acquire permits to carry concealed firearms, the rates of violent crime take a nose dive in those jurisdictions.
The scholarly research as well as tons of individual incidents such as the one which occurred with 56-year-old wheelchair-bound Margaret Johnson in New York Friday demonstrate that decent people need guns and access to them for their safety and for that of the public. People need to be able to protect their lives and safety and the lives and safety of their loved ones from violent criminal predators. Politicians, academics, journalists, church officials and others who don’t understand this or who refuse to admit it really just don’t get it.
Guns save lives. Guns protect the innocent.
And regardless of their reasoning, anyone trying limit or take away your firearms are by definition against you saving your life, your property, or that of those you care about. Nor do they much care how "innocent" you may be.
It isn't a Right, if you have to ask permission.
Smart woman. On her way to the range my butt, but she was smart enough to tell the cops precisely that. "But, ma'am, the range closed three hours ago and you're headed in the wrong direction." "Oh. I guess I just got mixed up." Love it.
From other stories about her posted at FR, she most likely was on her way to the range. She goes there frequently because shooting relieves her tensions.
The cops are still cutting her a break. An NYC target permit requires that the holder carry their weapon unloaded in a case and the ammo be kept separately. An absurd distinction, just so a law abiding citizen won't be able to use their weapon for self defense should it prove necessary.
Another interesting tidbit, if you happen to carry the weapon loaded, it is treated as a violation of your permit terms, not a crime.
Gun control fanatics are sending two messages.
YOU can't be trusted.
YOU can trust local tax authorities to tax you into safety.
You are 100% correct in the thinking of various gov't. officials and other assorted dummies! They always know best, and YOU DON'T MATTER EITHER....sad but true.
Why couldn't she have just called 911 and saved the poor man a trip to the hospital and probably jail. After all, he surely needed her jewelry and money more than she did.
You noticed that too?
Yes, guns may save lives. Yes, access of law-abiding citizen to guns may have "practical" value.
So what? It's irrelevant!
The fact is that government is FORBIDDEN from denying access of citizens to firearms. Period! End of story.
There's no need to justify. There's no need to show the practical advantages. There's no need to ask permission. You have a RIGHT to possess firearms... even if they aren't "practical."
If you get into having to justify the need for your rights, you soon won't have any.
> hoplophobic <
What a fantastic word! I don't think even Victor Davis Hanson (may favorite scholar of classical Greek) would have come up with that one!
[Now if I can only remember it!]
Credited to Col. Jeff Cooper.
Despite the research by scholars like Lott and Kleck most of the anti-gun crowd doesn't want to be confused by facts.
Bloomberg is more concerned with making it a crime in NYC to light up a cigarette than with allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against real crime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.