Some few days ago I heard, on TV, an anti-gun proponent decry the
medical and other costs of the People's common and considerable access
to guns.
But, what are the medical, psychological and other "costs" to unprotected people (The police are always too few and too late to
protect) who are killed, physically and emotionally maimed and lose forever that part of their lives which were expended in honestly earning the
money to obtain what lawfully belongs to them---When they are unable to effectively and immediately protect themselves by the use (Or, as is more common, the "mere" pointing) of a gun?
I
doubt that the dollar sum of either groups of people will ever be
known. But, it is unreasonable, non-factual and lying to declare that
the costs of one are greater than the other.
(My practice at-arms is such that I can declare that I can save much money for the police, courts and prison systems by my ability, at the usual home-defense distance of 15-feet, of accurate and very rapid-fire placement of bullets following the FBI's protocol of "two to the chest and one to the head". )
Thursday, March 07, 2013
The Costs Of NOT Having Guns For Defense
Labels:
Crime,
Culture,
Ethics/Morality,
Law,
Politics,
Self-Defense,
UK,
Weapons
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment