Posted on 12/17/2002 12:55:21 PM PST by 45Auto
It is important for the government to protect everyone from gun violence. That is why the laws of the United States must stop disarming the victims. In many cases, from the legendary Columbine and Hawaii shootings to the Washington D.C. Sniper Case, a person with a gun has gone on a rampage, shooting and killing many innocent victims. One's first instinct may be to blame the guns and to demand more laws to make it more difficult for people to acquire them, but take a closer look at this approach. All of the shootings mentioned above had another thing in common: the victims were all unarmed. Because the killings took place in areas where there were no weapons allowed, the murderers knew that they would be free to shoot whomever they pleased without any resistance. The Columbine shooting occurred in a school, where guns were forbidden.
The Hawaii shooting occurred at a business where guns were forbidden. The sniper case happened in Washington, D.C., which has some of the strictest gun-control laws in the country. This is all clear proof that more gun control laws do not reduce the number of shootings and do not accomplish the goal of protecting innocent people. So what really can be done? In order to make good public policy decisions that really will improve safety, one should examine history, understand the myths behind the statistics, and study the minds of criminals.
Studying history helps prevent the repetition of mistakes, and taking away the right to self-defense is one such mistake. The right to self-defense is one of the most basic of human rights. In fact, it is enshrined in the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, which states that, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow people to protect themselves against a corrupt government. The first thing Adolf Hitler did when he wanted to take power was to take away people's guns. "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future," said Hitler. This sounded wonderful to the German people, but what was the result? Horrible suffering and the slaughter of millions of innocent people, who were left defenseless once they had given up their guns. Here is another disturbing eye-opener from good old Hitler. "What good fortune for government, that people do not think."
Many people, fortunately, are thinking - sorry Adolf - but the information on which they are basing their decisions is skewed. Many people are concerned about the safety of their children, and thus, one main argument many gun control law advocates make is that it is more dangerous to have a gun around the house than to be unarmed. But that simply is not true. Many people have heard horrendous statistics about child death rates due to shootings. These statistics are misleading however, because they include gang violence among 17-19 year olds - not just household safety. In fact, Dave Kopel, of the Independence Institute, and his colleagues did some research and found that more children under the age of 5 drown in 5-gallon buckets each year than are harmed in firearm accidents. Besides, how safe would a child feel if she knew that a burglar could just waltz into her house and shoot her while her parents were unable to do anything to defend her? Also, just because you were allowed to have a gun in your home does not mean that you would have to. Whether or not you own a gun would be your choice, and it would be up to you to act responsibly and keep the gun out of reach of what should be your most precious possessions--your children.
Well, since gun control does not make innocent people safer, what can be done? Mr. John R. Lott Jr., senior research scholar at the Yale University Law School, has proposed a solution. He writes in his book, entitled More Guns, Less Crime, about a study that was done between the years of 1988 and 1992. The study found that states that allowed people to carry concealed weapons saw a dramatic decline in the crime rate. Lott's study shows that criminals are not the stupid stereotypes we make them out to be through Hollywood and TV. Criminals will weigh the advantages and disadvantages of a situation. If they think chances are good that they are going to be shot, they are far less likely to commit the crime in the first place. Still, many people argue that taking all the guns away is a sure way to rid the world of gun violence. However, it is impossible to get rid of all the guns in the world. What is, after all, the definition of a criminal? Criminals are lawbreakers. They break laws. This means that, no matter how many laws are enacted, the 'bad guys,' murderers and thieves, will always find a gun because they do not really care how many laws they have to break to get one. In truth, gun control laws only make the world a safer place for criminals - not for innocent people, and if these laws are eliminated, the world will truly be much safer.
A prime example of this was a shooting recently in a West Virginia law school. A student came in with a gun and started shooting, but he was stopped when another student ran to his car, got his gun, came back, and held the shooter at gunpoint. This allowed the other students to tackle the shooter, preventing him from killing more people. Had the victims - the students - had no guns present with which to defend themselves, this event could have led to the slaughter of many more innocent people. It was the gun in the hands of a potential victim that ended the violence.
Gun control laws would be a joke if they did not result in the deaths of so many innocent people. Lawbreakers obviously will not abide by them, and, in the meantime, honest citizens must go around without a means of defense. Since it is impossible to rid the world completely of guns, the next best thing we can do is to allow potential victims to protect themselves.
What makes you think it is valid? Either he said it or he didn't (minor paraphrasings allowed). Most of what he said or wrote has been recorded and is reasonably accessable; provide a reference and you will be proven right. Kinda hard to prove he didn't say what he didn't say.
I have never seen a source for that quote; I have been aware of it for years. It may or may not be true, but on the internet I would not presume it to be true without a source.
Of course, if you want pages and pages of information, and documented quotes that say about the same thing, just ask the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. www.jpfo.org
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.