>How anyone can look in the eyes of someone crippled and maimed by one
>of these tools and then joyously proclaim ownership of one is simply
>beyond my limited intellectual capacity.
If that someone was a thug or burglar crippled and maimed by one of
these tools then I'll look them in the eye and "joyously proclaim"
ownership
of one.
It's been estimated (Shulman, "Stopping Power") that women use guns to
defend themselves from rapists 416 times per year. How do we look
THEM in the eye when we confiscate their guns?
Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, using surveys and
other data, has determined that armed citizens defend their lives or
property
with firearms against criminals approximately 1 million times a year.
In 98
percent of these instances, the citizen merely brandishes the weapon or
fires a warning shot. Only in 2 percent of the cases do citizens
actually shoot their assailants. In defending themselves with their
firearms, armed citizens kill 2,000 to 3,000 criminals each year, three
times the number killed by the police. A nationwide study by Kates,
the constitutional lawyer and criminologist, found that only 2 percent
of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified
as a criminal. The "error rate" for the police, however, was 11
percent, over five times as high. Evidence suggests that armed citizens
are very responsible in using guns to defend themselves.
Guns are tools. They can be used responsibly, in self-defense, or they
can
be used irresponsibly by criminals or the careless.
Since violent crimes are frequently committed by repeat offenders,
reserving prison space for them and having them serve their full
sentence would put a dent in violent crime.
Releasing violent criminals in order to make room for non-violent
drug offenders imprisoned under mandatory sentences is foolish.
I would like to ask the drug warriors how they look the victims of
repeat offenders in the eyes as they release violent felons in the name
of the WOD.
Pat Fallon
pfallon@bigfoot.com