vikorr wrote: Quote:
My principles are not based upon statistics.
Thay r not based upon numbers.
I was not talking about your principles David,
I was talking about your assertions (eg. Guns reduce crime)
In America, during the last half of the 1900s,
many states enacted statutes providing for discriminatory liscensure
of the right to self defense;
( I call it the saints n angels doctrine:
that only saints n angels have the right to defend themselves
from violent depredations of criminals or animals, n imperfect humans
must take their chances, and their taxes will be used to screw them
out of their rights to self defense ).
Beginning with Florida, that was repudiated n rejected in 1986,
such that any citizen can get a license to carry concealed guns
( the same as
any citizen can freely vote
or any citizen can freely speak, or any citizen can freely buy newspapers )
unless he has a history of mental impairment,
or a bad criminal history.
Since then, 39 more of the the United States have copied Florida,
with crime reductions in each state the following year,
according to FBI stastics ( which I have not personally checked ).
Vermont has never had any gun laws, and it has consistenty remained
the safest state, with the least, or near the least crime in the nation.
OF THOSE 40 of the 50 STATES, NONE OF THEM
HAVE EVER CHANGED THEIR MINDS n REVERTED TO GUN CONTROL.
NONE OF THEM HAS HAD A BAD EXPERIENCE WITH CRIME.
NONE OF THEM has found its rejection of gun control to have been an error.
Indeed, a Florida state legislator ( Silver, I believe )
who had led the futile opposition to rejection of gun control in Florida
in 1986, publicly apologized for his opposition.
He had predicted that the streets wud run red with blood.
The actual experience was that crime dropped and further declined.
Speaking of Florida puts me in mind of the Susan Gonzales experience:
There was a lady in Florida, Susan Gonzales, who feared n detested guns.
She requested her husband not to have any guns in their house,
especially with their children there. One night, 2 criminals broke down their front door.
They entered her home, shot Mrs. Gonzales twice, and shot her husband
as he lay in his bed.
Franticly, she scrambled to get the OBJECT OF ABHORENCE:
her husband's 9 shot .22 caliber revolver.
She grabbed it up and killed one of the criminals.
The other fled, after she shot him too.
Altho it is possible that the criminals might have allowed Mrs. Gonzales' children to live
(if they did not care that the children'd complain to the police and testify against them in court)
Mrs. G was not willing to confide the lives of her children
to the discretion of the men who shot both of their parents.
We need to understand that this attack was STOPPED
by the presence of an UNLOCKED gun in the home.
Without it, the murders of the parents and children probably would have
contined until all the children were dead. That gun was the INSTRUMENT OF LIFE for the Gonzales family.
After hospitalization, the Gonzales recovered from their wounds.
She became a public speaker in support of the right to keep and bear arms,
and takes her .38 Taurus revolver everywhere with her.
Wise is he who learns from his mistakes,
but wiser is he who learns from the mistakes of others.