Posted on 06/12/2013 2:23:09 PM PDT by Marcus
The prescription that many well meaning people have to tamp down on gun violence is to restrict the private ownership of fire arms. However the Associated Press reports that a private group in Houston is pursuing a different approach.
The Armed Citizen Project is giving away free shot guns to single women and residents in high crime area, starting with the northwest Houston Oak Forest neighborhood. The non-profit organization intends to expand its program, which includes a training program, to Dallas, San Antonio, and Tucson, Ariz. Plans are to have the program in place in 13 cities, including New York and Chicago.
(Excerpt) Read more at voices.yahoo.com ...
They were here in the spring:
http://armedcitizenproject.org/articles/texas-organization-to-give-away-shotguns-in-indianapolis
Got quite a bit of tut-tutting from the local MSM.
Works for me.
Aren’t we ALL potential crime victims?
If somehow the group could get their hands some of those guns collected in the ‘buy back’ program the police use. Good, suitable, working guns of course.
‘Buy Back’. Why the hell did the police sell them the guns in the first place?
Many years ago, the Phoenix New Times ran an April fools’ article, in which some group was giving guns to homeless people for their self defense.
Initially, those people (liberals) who didn’t get the joke were horrified, and wrote excited letters to the New Times, which the following week explained that it was a joke.
But that was not the end of the story. Cooler heads then asked, “If the homeless *were* armed, then what?”
The article was clear that guns would not be given to those homeless who were felons, or mentally ill. But what about the rest? They guns were marked as “not to be sold”, “if found, return to (the gun group)”.
There is no “poverty” exception in the 2nd Amendment. Even homeless citizens have the right to be armed. And homeless people are far more often victims of crime than are people who live indoors.
The conclusion at the time was that, if nobody is giving the honest homeless guns as charity, they should be. Because they *need* guns.
"While Lott has the statistics to back up this supposition, some social scientists claim that introducing fire arms into a crime situation makes it likely that someone is going to get killed or maimed.
Gotta love it. The statistics back up Lott, but the social scientists "feel" that someone is going to get hurt. So in other words, they would prefer the citizens to be unarmed and depend upon the good will of those robbing or raping them. And these people are running around loose?
And then we have . . .
"Opponents of gun rights counter that ordinary people cannot be trusted with fire arms and that only licensed and trained law enforcement should have them."
The most asinine statement in the article. We've all seen the results of gross incompetence by enough officers to belie the "one in a million" excuse. It also exposes the liberal mindset that you are too dumb to protect yourself and need the authorities to protect you, even though they can't be everywhere at once.
You read that article where Deputy Dawg somewhere shot up a litter of kittens and mother cat the other day? Kids saw it.
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.