-Caveat Lector-
August 5, 1999 /23 Av, 5759
Thomas Sowell
Gunning for guns
http://www.jewishworldreview.com
-- NOW THAT THE MASS SHOOTINGS in Atlanta have led to predictable
demands for more federal gun control laws, let us at least make
an effort to think rationally. Is the way to prevent more
tragedies like the one in Atlanta to pass laws ensuring that
virtually all Americans will be as helpless as those who were
shot and killed by Matt Barton? Does that make any sense?
When people ask emotionally, "How can we stop these things?" the
most straightforward answer is to ask: How was it in fact
stopped? It was stopped, like most shooting sprees, by the
arrival on the scene of other people with guns.
It is the monopoly of guns by people with evil intentions that is
dangerous. Some of the most dangerous places in America are
places where strict gun-control laws provide assurance to violent
criminals that their victims will not be able to defend
themselves.
What if every third or fourth person in that building in Atlanta
had a gun available at the time? Under such conditions, it is
very unlikely that Matt Barton could have shot 22 people before
he was stopped.
There are communities whose gun laws permit law-abiding citizens
to have ready access to firearms and where many citizens
accordingly have registered guns. These communities have less
violence in general and fewer shooting sprees like this in
particular. Wouldn't it be better if nobody had guns? Of course
it would. It would be better if man had never invented the bow
and arrow, much less modern weapons. But that is not a serious
option.
The one thing that so-called "gun control" laws do not do is
control guns. They disarm potential victims. People who do not
care about the law can always get guns in a country with 200
million guns and more coming in, both legally and illegally.
We can't even stop millions of human beings from coming into this
country illegally -- and a handgun is a lot smaller than a
person. That basic reality is not changed by politicians and
media loudmouths who appeal to emotions and symbolism by crying
out for more guns laws. You can always pass feel-good laws and
ignore their actual consequences. In fact, we have already done
too much of that on too many other issues.
The biggest hypocrites on gun control are those who live in
upscale developments with armed security guards -- and who want
to keep other people from having guns to defend themselves.
Affluent homeowners pay to have private armed security patrols
cruising their neighborhoods. Many of them are also for gun
control. Of course you don't have to have a gun yourself when you
are paying other people to carry guns for you. But what about
lower-income people living in high-crime, inner city
neighborhoods? Should such people be kept unarmed and helpless,
so that limousine liberals can "make a statement" by adding to
the thousands of gun laws already on the books?
Could gangs of armed hoodlums and criminals flourish and
terrorize whole neighborhoods, as they do, if people all around
them had guns? We don't have to speculate. Studies at the
University of Chicago show that violence drops immediately in
communities that pass laws permitting law-abiding citizens to
carry concealed weapons.
Such communities do not have shoot-outs on the streets or
vigilante actions -- the big bugaboos of those who love to
believe that others lack the brains or the decency that they
reserve for the anointed like themselves. Contrary to those to
whom politics is an ego trip, both citizens and criminals have
common sense. That is why there are more shootings when only one
side has guns.
If the real purpose of gun control laws was to prevent crime,
then we would expect their most zealous advocates to be zealous
about other anti-crime measures as well. They are not. On the
contrary, those who are most vocal against guns are generally the
most reluctant to put criminals behind bars and keep them there.
How many gun-control advocates have even noticed -- much less
protested -- the fact that John Hinckley, who attempted to
assassinate President Reagan and grievously wounded press
secretary Jim Brady in the process, is now walking the streets
again on furlough? Instead, they have exploited the shooting of
Jim Brady to pass laws disarming more citizens who have never
shot anybody.
There is a very real possibility that the tragedy in Atlanta will
lead to more laws making more such tragedies more likely.
=================================================================
Kaddish, Kaddish, Kaddish, YHVH, TZEVAOT
FROM THE DESK OF: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Mike Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
~~~~~~~~ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends
Shalom, A Salaam Aleikum, and to all, A Good Day.
=================================================================
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
