Posted on 06/25/2008 3:02:54 PM PDT by neverdem
+1
-—and then there is Mayor Hickenlooper of Denver and his daring new plan—
-—http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_9678073?source=commented-news
Guns don’t kill people; gun-bans kill people.
John R. lost my respect when he was caught posting as “Mary Rosh” on Usenet several years back.
Mayor Hickenlooper is a dim bulb in search of cocktail party creds.
I think you should post that link as a it’s own thread. It has a nifty poll too.
Mayor Hickenlooper of Denver is going to have a year to remember. Thanks for the link.
—did a couple of days ago—
Bump!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I’d still trust and support John Lott over any Dhim or “liberal” anyday.
he's a serial professor who spends 3 years at different prestigious universities and his salary is paid for by pro-gun groups.
this is all common knowledge throughout academia. but he publishes and he's free so schools love him.
and look, i agree with him! gun bans are the scourge of the USA! but come on. have some integrity.
I would like to see a source re: this.
An interesting aspect of gun control countries that to my knowledge has never been studied is the concomitant use of lethal martial arts.
In the case of the old Soviet Union, both guns and unregulated martial arts were prohibited. And while accurate statistics about illegal guns aren’t available, it is known that illegal martial arts schools still existed.
Importantly, these illegal martial arts schools specialized in singularly lethal techniques. That was not just because you would typically get into lethal fights, but that you couldn’t let it be known that you were a martial artist.
That is, if you killed a person, you would go to prison, but if you were known to be a martial artist, you would be killed by the government.
That being said, what about England today? Guns are banned, so they are everywhere in the hands of criminals and scared citizens. Knives are being banned, so if you would have carried a knife to defend yourself, you will probably want a gun.
But what if you are a martial artist?
No doubt if you defended yourself with martial arts, and the criminal survived, you would be punished, and the police would everything they could to prevent you from using your abilities in the future.
So instead of beating criminals, why not kill them?
A good martial artist can use just about anything as a weapon, or even with their bare hands they can administer lethal blows. And as long as they used some discretion, the dead criminal would just be put down as “death by misadventure.”
If they were patient, just a few martial artists could cleanse a large area of its worst offenders, with the authorities none the wiser. And if trained in another country, there would be nothing about them to even draw suspicion.
But in the final analysis, if a government refuses to protect the public from vicious criminals, yet prevents the public from defending themselves, then the public is left little choice but to take the law into their own hands, and with considerably less finesse than the law would allow.
Certainly government always feels more threatened by vigilantism than by criminals, but if they have failed in their primary duty, then they have lost legitimacy.
I would like to see a source re: this.
So would I.
As I recall, it was two experts on the other side of the issue who made up data to support their position. Their data could not be replicated.
gun control bump
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.