Are you able to trust government to keep you safe and to protect you?
Do you really support removing your right to defend yourself?
If you are personally attacked, are law enforcement right there on hand to protect or save you when you really need the assistance? Almost always police arrive much later to take your statements, if you are still alive, and view the aftermath.
What if there is highly credible evidence indicating that laws which are imposed by governments under the guise of protecting you, were actually removing your ability to protect yourself, and even worse, exposing you to a greater risk of being murdered or raped or becoming yet another victim of armed robbery?
Are these laws removing a level of deterrence which increases the risk of you being exposed to, or even a victim of many serious crimes?
How should someone be compensated by government or the state if they are affected by these crimes, in light of this information?
Have our lawmakers or government actually been negligent, in light of knowledge from these ongoing studies?
How should the lawmakers who are imposing these restrictions, be answerable to victims who are impacted as a result?
To what extent should government lawmakers ultimately be liable for any negligence as a result?
"On its initial publication in 1998, John R. Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime drew both lavish praise and heated criticism.
More than a decade later, it continues to play a key role in ongoing arguments over gun-control laws: despite all the attacks by gun-control advocates, no one has ever been able to refute Lott’s simple, startling conclusion that more guns mean less crime.
Relying on the most rigorously comprehensive data analysis ever conducted on crime statistics and right-to-carry laws, the book directly challenges common perceptions about the relationship of guns, crime, and violence.
For this third edition, Lott draws on an additional ten years of data—including provocative analysis of the effects of gun bans in Chicago and Washington, D.C—that brings the book fully up to date and further bolsters its central contention."
Almost everyone would go out of their way to avoid hurting another person yet everyone who remains law abiding and does not threaten others ought to have the right to protect themselves and innocent others, if and when needed.
Australian firearm buy back regulations cost everyone in Australia considerably, and yet this expensive exercise did absolutely nothing to reduce the Australian crime rate. Also crimes carried out by criminals utilising the support of firearms seems to be escalating in Australia if current media reports are to be trusted.
Could it actually be that law abiding legal firearm owners are not proponents of crime?
This mirrors reports from the UK who imposed even more restrictive regulations on law abiding citizens which really opened the doors for anyone operating outside the law!
- If someone thinks they can get away with someting they should not do which will hurt others - they could very well go for it.
- If some one thinks they will not get away with something which they should not do to others they simply will not attempt it.
If you found yourself in a situation would you prefer to be in a position where you had access to a means to deter the attack and protect youself, or prefer to be waiting and hoping that the police finally arrive, and can save you, before a killer murders you?
If you are pro gun control, and a female (or male for that matter) is raped, and this crime would not have happened if the attacker would have been deterred through right to carry/defend laws then you are responsible, and ultimately answerable. Ignorance is not a defence.
