Compare different policies from across the US – Part 6 on the right to protect yourself
Americans are understandably determined that massacres like the one at the Sandy Hook school in Newtown, Connecticut, never happen again. But how? Some are calling for ever stricter control of firearms. Many others advocate more effective treatment of people with mental illness and understand that so-called gun-free zones simply disarm law-abiding victims.
The long-term response must take these and many different viewpoints into account. What does experience show that is effective and ineffective in the US? What doesn’t work? What are you doing?
The Results of Banning Guns in Colorado
After Colorado’s concealed carry law of 2003 was enacted, Colorado State University decided to allow concealed carry, while the University of Colorado banned firearms. Comparing the two is healthy.
The University of Colorado, under a gun ban they claimed was for safety, saw a rapid increase in crime, while the former enjoyed a rapid decline. Crime at the Gun-Free University of Colorado is up 35 percent since 2004, while crime at Colorado State University is down 60 percent in the same time period.
In the state of Colorado, in 2002, there were 47 reported sex crimes, down from 2 in 2008. A similar drop in crime was seen in virtually every other category after concealed carry was legalized. Understanding the results of the two universities will change your life. Experience shows that firearms can effectively detect crime.
Hundreds of incidents have favorable results
As readily available reports of hundreds of incidents show, gun owners stop a large number of attempted criminal murders, rapes, assaults, robberies every year… Policymakers interested in harm reduction should, therefore, refrain from treating common gun owners as thugs and criminals. adopt policies that respect the possession and carrying of weapons by responsible persons.
Even President Obama has had to reprimand gun safety advocates to accept the proposition that “Almost all gun owners in America are very responsible.”
Are America’s Tightening Gun Policies Working?
In the mid-1960s, in most US states, an adult could walk into a store and buy an AR-15 rifle, no questions asked. Today, firearms are the most regulated consumer product in the United States.
Today, if you want to buy an AR-15 or any other firearm, the store must first obtain a sales permit from the FBI or its state counterpart. The permit is denied if the buyer falls into one of nine categories of “prohibited persons,” including felons, domestic violence misdemeanors, and persons who have been declared mentally ill or alcoholic.
For half a century, “active shooters” were rare, what can explain the continued increase in these shootings? Counterintuitively, could it be ever-tightening gun control regulations that simply disarm innocent victims and leave criminals with illegal access to guns?
Piers Morgan’s public attack on your right to protect yourself
Unfortunately, Britain’s Piers Morgan’s vituperative but inept attack on American Larry Pratt** demonstrates his inability to overcome the shortcomings of government-controlled education. Morgan’s highly emotional public outburst – in favor of giving up freedoms and against skeptically exploring the value of gun controls – suggests that educational systems prefer to teach you what think not What to think.
Morgan doesn’t realize that every time you point a finger at someone else, you’re also pointing three fingers at yourself. So by calling Pratt “an incredibly stupid man” and saying “You’re talking complete and utter nonsense…an absolute lie,” Morgan doesn’t realize that he is actually talking to himself and about himself!
Because Morgan has not investigated the matter with an open mind, her only course is to emotionally defend her irrational position. But given that she is ignoring the facts, how can she offer any rational basis for imposing more and more restrictions on her right to defend herself against him? More proof of the government’s failure: he was obviously not taught in school, nor has he since learned, to think for himself. His behavior, understandably, was libelous.
So, on behalf of the British people, let me apologize for the rudeness of my compatriot Morgan. As adults, rather than children dressed as adults in adult bodies, most of us learn to think for ourselves. We appreciate that disagreeing with another does not mean you should vilify them. In fact, adults all over the world know that alienating others doesn’t help solve any problem.
Governments want you to believe, not explore skeptically
In school, too many students are taught to believe in others, to accept the point of view of the educational system. In contrast, scientists learn to approach things with a skeptical mind. You will change your life with the scientific approach: being skeptical deters other people from manipulating you. This secret of success will prevent you from repeating the nonsense of politicians who pretend that their deceitful sophistic policies will benefit you.
Governments, like universities and schools, cannot guarantee the safety of their citizens or students, so why deprive responsible citizens of their right to protect themselves and their school-age children?
food for thought
“Whoever wants to give up freedom to gain security will neither have nor deserve either… Distrust and caution are the fathers of security.”
– Benjamin Franklin 1706-1790, American statesman, diplomat, and inventor
* Crime at Colorado State University has decreased with concealed carry in:
http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/tough-targets-when-criminals-face-armed-resistance-citizens
** British Piers Morgan’s libelous public attack on American Larry Pratt can be explored at:
http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/20/piers-morgans-argument-for-gun-control-y
© Copyright Worldwide Cris Baker, LifeStrategies.net. Reprinting is welcome under the Creative Commons Non-Commercial No Derivatives License keeping all links intact. All rights reserved.
Leave a Reply