Skip to comments.Larry Elder: How often are guns used in self-defense?
Posted on 07/31/2012 11:01:33 AM PDT by marktwain
About the tragedy in Aurora, Colo., rapper/actor Ice-T made more sense and has a better understanding of the Second Amendment than gun-control proponents.
Asked by a London news anchor about America's gun culture, Ice-T said: "Well, I'd give up my gun when everybody does. Doesn't that make sense? ... If there were guns here, would you want to be the only person without one?"
Suppose a guy goes to a baseball game. "Honey," his wife asks afterward, "who won the game?" The husband says, "The Dodgers scored four runs." What's missing? Obviously, the wife still knows nothing about the outcome because she knows only one-half of the equation. Well, how can one responsibly discuss "how many people die because of guns" without discussing the other half of the equation how many people would not be alive without their defensive use of a gun?
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
How many of the criminal mindset would regularly break into occupied dwellings if they knew that Americans were mostly disarmed.
And when a home invader is shot dead - you not only stopped ONE crime - but all the crime that the dead perp would otherwise commit through a lifetime of criminality.
I think that Mr. Ice-T could be a good, *complementary* spokesman for the NRA.
That is, the NRA has a fairly consistent line of argument that appeals a lot to the majority of Americans. But while these arguments are still valid for minorities, they are a less persuasive “sell” of the importance of gun rights to them.
The proof of this is that several minority groups have created their own gun rights organizations, *not* because they are in conflict with the NRA and organizations like it, but because they are better able to “sell” gun rights to their own group.
If you look at the “more responsible” black America, their concerns for gun rights are less focused on self defense from crime than they are for self defense against police who they believe treat them unfairly.
Based in reality or not, generally speaking this *is* of major importance in gun rights, the *ability* to stand up against an unfair government or its agents. G. Gordon Liddy would understand perfectly the same idea, if from a different perspective.
And while Civil Rights are bestowed “by the creator”, and thus need no “justification”, such justifications still help to “sell” the importance of civil rights to the public.
Much the way many of the rest of us focus more on self-defense against the government thugs who will be coming for us if the regime gains just a little more power. I can see where they're coming from.
Proactive Exponential Crime Prevention?
Seeings as how many home invasion crime sprees start out as burglaries but end up with rape and/or murder - I think a couple well applied hollow points can nip that in the bud.
The whole debate is a red herring.
The important thing to recognize, and should be respected in what Ice-T says is that the 2nd Amendment is a *right*, not given or potentially taken away by government, so needs no justification at all.
A person may assert that they *need* that right for a reason; but that reason is still incidental to it being a right. Even if they have no reason at all, or a stupid reason, they still retain the right.
Granted, if someone misuses that right, in a criminal act, or they become mentally ill, that right can be *suspended*. But even then, we should never let it be said that the right “was taken away from them”, because it cannot be. Only that they cannot use it as they choose.
NO! Its time to turn that around, its time that we start talking about getting rid of those moronic Gun-Free zones.
“How often are guns used in self-defense?”
Not often enough. That’s why our prisons are full, we put ankle bracelets on thugs, have clogged courts, and employ all manner of half-measures that ensure jobs for the lawyer industry.