This article was printed from KeepAndBearArms.com.
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
Pro Choice
From: "Ross, Ken" <KPRoss@newsamerica.com> While I understand Mr. De Leon's
apprehension to CCW laws, the fact of the matter is that it is his choice whether
or not to own and carry a firearm. It is NOT his choice to determine whether
or not I do so.
Perhaps he'd like to educate himself
before he expounds further ignorance. Here is an online version of Dr. Gary
Kleck's research into the number of self defensive uses of a firearm per year:
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html
Now as to Mr. De Leon being scared
that other people have firearms....why? Has a lawful citizen threatened him
or has he been shot by someone with a CCW license? I'd bet my money that no,
he hasn't. What about criminals? Does Mr. De Leon think that criminals obey
the 'no firearms' signs at stores and shopping malls? How about the 'gun free'
school zones? Again, my money is on no. A criminal is someone that is by definition,
not going to follow the law. So why are we so interested in disarming the average
citizen?
Does Mr. De Leon think the police
will save him? (I'll just briefly mention the irony of someone that doesn't
like firearms asking for help from an armed officer.) In court cases across
the US, including the Supreme Court, it has been found that the police have
no duty to protect you. Their sole purpose is to uphold the law. You can't uphold
the law unless a crime has been committed can you? Otherwise, how do you know
what law has been broken? Do a quick search, I used Yahoo, on the following
words: police no obligation protect
You'll find wonderful sites quoting
mostly the same info, but my favorite is: http://www.copcrimes.com/courtcases.htm
28 different cases saying the police
are not required to protect us.
Mr. De Leon seems to like statistics,
quoting the FBI national statistics. But that's a national average he's referring
to. Basically he's comparing a state level legislation to a national crime stat.
That's not a good comparison. Take state level stats with state level CCW laws.
You'll see the states that have CCW are at the lower end of crime stats, while
states with unconstitutional firearms restrictions are at the top. Take Chicago,
IL or Maryland. They have the most restrictive firearms laws. Here's one study
using the FBI statistics: http://www.rkba.org/research/suter/states.crime-ccw.4sep95.html
I guess my point is simple. My choice
to own and possess a firearm is my own. It does not affect you. If it so happens
that I get into an altercation with a criminal and I have to pull my firearm
and you are affected, then we will deal with those consequences after everyone
is safe and taken care of. However, your choice to make sure I DON'T have a
firearm if I want one, affects me directly, not you.
In a world where everyone likes
to be pro-choice, I choose to have my own choice. This is my life. If you don't
want the people around you to have firearms to protect themselves, go to Japan
or Britain. Oh wait, Britain is having a rash of gun violence....but....how
did THAT happen if guns are banned? Hmmm.
Regards, To Get Your Letters Printed Here |
||||||||