Let's see:
- Take the Killer Thugs off of the street while allowing law abiding people to retain their guns. The result: PEACE
- Take the guns away from all of the people while allowing the Killer Thugs to remain embedded within the community. The result: They will obtain illegal guns or will start to use other weapons to inflict death on people.
After a career criminal murdered a Philadelphia police officer, it was suggested, without providing supporting evidence, that banning guns in Philadelphia would have saved the officer’s life:
Philadelphia Police officer John Pawlowski was not killed by Rasheed Scruggs -- he was killed by the .357 pistol that Scruggs was using. Take away that gun and Scruggs is just another thug with his hands in his pockets. [Emphasis added]
Perhaps Philadelphia should be more like Washington, DC, which has the most stringent gun control laws in the country? In 2007, DC’s violent crime rate was 3 times the U.S. rate; its murder rate was 5.5 times higher.
Contrary to the anti-rights claim that law-abiding gun owners are responsible for "easy access to guns in the city," Philadelphia’s police chief implied that his officers should have permanently resolved the real problem:
"He [Scruggs] wasn't hit enough," an emotional Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey told reporters. "That's the only thing that matters. I don't care."
Philadelphia’s Fraternal Order of Police also blamed the criminal, and a revolving-door legal system:
FOP President John J. McNesby's words were more measured yesterday, but the frustration and anguish were easy to read between the lines.
"He did everything by the textbook," McNesby said of Pawlowski. "So, what do we say when they do everything right and this happens?
"[Scruggs] should never have been on the street with his record. They've got to be able to put people like this in a place where they don't get out." [Emphasis added]
In all five cases listed by Philadelphia Daily News, officers were murdered by career criminals. See a pattern here? It was not law-abiding citizens suddenly becoming homicidal maniacs, it was career criminals who are already banned from even holding a gun!
To the anti civil-rights crowd, all gun control laws are “reasonable”; the first one enacted attains an aura of reasonability by its very existence. Further restrictions then become “reasonable” due to precedent. This is similar to how criminals think: Because they’ve been robbing people, they continue because they established a precedent: since they have been getting away with it and making money, it’s reasonable to continue. This may be why anti civil-rights proponents love laws which only punish the law-abiding and create more available prey: Both groups benefit from the law-abiding from being disarmed. One gets our money by violent force, and the other gets it through taxes––and the threat of force for non-payment––in order to support a burgeoning bureaucracy supposedly there to protect us from crime, but in fact with no legal obligation to do anything.
No comments:
Post a Comment