|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
National Rifle Association Uses Baltimore Riots To Promote "Stand Your Ground" Laws
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The National Rifle Association used riots in Baltimore to promote controversial "Stand Your Ground" self-defense laws by citing an article from conservative website Breitbart.com that claimed such laws "are an antidote for brazen in-your-face attacks on city streets."
In fact, several pieces of academic research indicate that "Stand Your Ground" laws increase the incidence of homicides. More generally, research has shown that allowing guns to be carried in public increases crime, particularly aggravated assault. "Stand Your Ground" laws have also been criticized due to research indicating that the laws are applied to minorities in a disparate manner. |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(4/30/2015)
|
| Some more astrobarf from "media matters" ! Obviously avoidance of any sort of "confrontational situation" is the sine qua non of any CCW holder. (not that its a problem in hoplophobic MD) But the sound advice mentioned in the short blurb MM attributed to the NRA is completely valid. Flight in the face of a mob often triggers its "prey instincts". Conversely, calm, stern response (backed up with selective violence, if necessary) directed at key individuals might just save your life. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
