Gun control: looking down the muzzle of lies.
*Authors Note: The following steps will only work if your subject has the capacity for rational thought. When speaking to a liberal progressive, using logic, facts, and reason to support your position will not have any effect. Liberalism is a mental disease and progressives further their agenda through lies. An attempt to argue logic and facts with a liberal is akin to teaching a pig to ride a bike. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Smashing the Gun Control (human control) argument is so easy that even a Columbia journalism major could do it, if they some how possessed the courage to try. What follows is a simple three step process to addressing the argument for civilian disarmament. All so-called “gun control” regulations exempt the government, or more aptly, employees of the state.
Gun control laws also by definition exempt criminals and those with criminal intent. A criminal is a person prone to or engaged in “unlawful activity”. Therefore, Malum Prohibitum laws concerning firearms will not prevent a criminal from possessing or using a gun in the commission of a crime. A violation of an existing Malum Prohibitum statute is merely an additional charge to add to the charges of Murder, Attempted Murder, Aggravated Assault, etc.
If the stated purpose of the gun control law is to “save lives” we can clearly see that criminal behavior will not be affected as they have already made a conscious decision to violate the law. To state that a creature, who is willing to violate Malum In Se through the act of murder, robbery, rape, etc., will be dissuaded from using a firearm during the aforementioned acts by a new Malum Prohibitum statute is the height of childish naivete and blind, emotionally driven foolishness.
Considering the previous facts, supposed gun control laws have only one true legitimate target; the civilian. Only law-abiding citizens are genuinely effected by further restrictions. Ergo, gun control is tantamount civilian or citizen disarmament, it cannot and does not affect anyone else.
3 Steps
#1 Self-Defense
Ask you subject whether or not a man or a woman (any human being) has a legitimate right to self-defense. Does a person posses the legal right to defend themselves against unlawful attack? If the person you are speaking to hesitates and says anything but “yes”, your conversation is over. Should the subject say “yes, but…” then they do not believe it. They are a slave to the state and cannot be saved. You are finished with them, move on with your life.
“A man who cannot be persuaded to take up arms, even in the defense of that which he holds most dear, even for the protection of his own life, is the most selfish and vile of all creatures. That creature is no man at all and deserves neither respect nor serious consideration.”
–PGM 1/4/2013
#2 The Police
Ask the subject if it is the responsibility of the state, the police, to protect you (the people) from criminal attacks. Do you believe that the police are required to protect you by law? Unless they have been previously educated, your subject may naively respond to the effect that yes, the police must protect you, it is the law.
It is in fact NOT the law that the state, the police, protect individual citizens from attack or harm. In Warren vs. District of Columbia the court found that the D.C. police “owe no specific duty” to protect individuals from criminal harm. Therefore the District was held harmless. Warren was a woman who, along with her two female roommates, was brutalized horribly after the D.C. police were called but never arrived to help.
In a more recent case, the Manhattan Supreme Court ruled that the city of New York could not be sued after NYPD officers failed to stop a man from being brutally stabbed on a subway, even though the officers were present when the attack occurred. The court again found that the police had “no special duty” to protect citizens as individuals.
#3 Tools
Arriving safely at this point with our subject, we will reinforce the fact that self-defense is a human right and that the state does not have a legal duty to protect individual citizens from criminal harm. Now it is time to discuss the tools. This step will include a short battery of questions.
If someone is trying to kill you or a loved one, is it legal to use a hammer as a tool to stop them? …is it legal to use a knife to stop them? …a gun to stop them? …a coffee pot to stop them?
If the answer to the battery of question is yes, you can continue with a final two part question.
Does the tool used for self-defense have any bearing on whether or not the defense was justified? Or, are the person’s actions what justifies self-defense, not the object used?
In Conclusion
Having come to the conclusion of the discussion, your subject should agree that every human has a natural right to self-defense. They understand that the government/police have no duty to protect you as an individual (and in reality cannot). Finally, it is not the object that determines what is and is not justifiable self-defense but the actions of the person.
With the common ground established between you and a person that possesses the capacity for rational thought, you are now able to pose what should be a rhetorical question. What is the purpose of gun control laws, other than to hinder the law abiding and offer an imaginary “feel good” solution to a human behavior problem?
Drop the microphone and walk off stage.
Paul Markel is the author of numerous books; to include “Faith and the Patriot”, “The Patriot Fire Team” and “Student of the Gun, a beginner once, a student for life”. Go to Student of the Gun Gear or Amazon.com for more information
Paul Markel
Professor Paul, I think you may have the wrong case with Warren V DC. The link provided pulls up “Morris Warren, representing himself, sued the District of Columbia under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for constitutional violations he claims to have suffered while incarcerated in a private prison in Youngstown, Ohio.” In the article, you stated it was three women who were brutalized. You may want to fix your link.
DC has run afoul with many Warrens over the years. Link updated. thanks.
I often can’t express how i feel,I love how my friend Paul specks.
wake up people,lets take this country back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Excellent post Paul. After the murders in Oregon, the useful idiots are sure to heed the call of the slave masters, and we will once again be battling for our God given rights acknowledged in the Constitution. Thank you for helping us to arm our minds.
I read this through a second time and Mr. Markel pointedly fails to consider the one single element that most drives the debate for gun control advocates, and that is the harm caused by the use of firearms.
To answer Mr. Markel’s conclusionary question, one that he mistakenly believes is rhetorical but is not (the question: “What is the purpose of gun control laws, other than to hinder the law abiding and offer an imaginary “feel good” solution to a human behavior problem? “) one need only reply “The purpose of gun control laws is to balance the right of self-defense, including the right of defense against a tyrannical government, against the measurable societal injuries caused by otherwise easy access to guns. That is the purpose of such laws. Now let us discuss how best to balance those two interests.”
Back to you Sir.
Keith, I suggest you read the article a third time and maybe you will better understand the point. I suggest you read the “self-defense” portion SLOWLY. I know that one day I may have to use my gun against someone who is going to HARM me. I CHOOSE to not be a VICTIM. When it comes to them or me, I will go down fighting! Because it’s their choice to HARM me and you can damn well bet I will fight them tooth and nail because I want to go home. If someone chooses to attack them it’s their mistake. The best victims are unarmed “sheeple”. Gun control does NOTHING for our society but make society easy prey for criminals.
Careful, you are making too
much sense for him.
Do you have anymore cupons to baby gap? I’m going to assume that’s where you shop. Considering your brain hasn’t developed past age 5, your body probably hasn’t either
Well the good news is that Keith will make a good little victim.
“Easy access to guns” does not injure society. Guns are inanimate objects, and people do not turn into demons when they pick up a gun. Laws do not hinder criminals, and criminals will always be able to obtain or make weapons, even if they aren’t guns. You can’t legislate morality. Laws against carrying or possessing guns only disarms the good people in society, making them more at risk from violent criminals.
If you’re worried about accidents with guns, the solution is education and training, not laws.
Since you seem like a simple minded person Ill try and make this as simple as possible. If a “criminal” is someone who breaks the law and a “law abiding” person is someone who follows the rule of law, what then would be the point of creating new laws? Last time I checked murder was illegal, assault was illegal, theft was illegal… but that doesn’t seem to stop the people who choose to do those things anyway. Please tell me how creating new gun control laws will affect anyone but the ones willing to follow the new laws (aka good people). Please tell me how making it harder for good people to get guns will make it harder for people willing to skirt the law. You see man theres no amount of laws (which are nothing more than pieces of paper) that will stop someone who is hell bent on doing harm, or getting their hands on guns (Chicago???). Criminals are not getting their guns from gun stores! This is just a reality that we have to deal with. In response to your comment, there need not be a balance between those two elements of the existence of guns, they are tools meant for violence, violence in itself is neither good or bad, the problem here is the malicious behavior of criminals. The tool has nothing to do with the problem. You cannot legislate ill-intent away. Im sure you can understand that long before the invention of the controlled explosion that propels a projectile in a certain direction, there were still murders and violence, right? Its simple man, when you use the rational side of your brain you’ll see we don’t need more laws, we need to be more strict on the ones we do currently have, that’s something you could argue, but new laws… there’s no point. Gun control is nothing more than a “feel good” measure that is being used to take rights away from good people all over the country. No one cares about your feelings man so take your irrational line of thinking and check yourself with some facts and logic.
Really Keith? So tell us which of these wonderful gun control laws that you champion would have done ANY good in the overpublicized mass killings of late? Reason I ask is that it’s precisely those circumstances in which you and your crowd start screaming for so-called common sense gun control. It’s really pathetic and sick how quickly you hold up these victims to further your delusional agenda to trample over my rights.
We all should know that the are evil people that will do bad acts. There is likely to always be evil people and they will continue to do evil/bad things.
Now, these evil people do not need guns to accomplish their evil acts, they will use what ever tools are handy, such as bombs, knives, fists, posion, biological agents, etc.
So, the idea that there exist “societal injuries caused by otherwise easy access to guns” that would not exist without access to guns is not a valid assumption.
Second, laws do not have the ability to stop people from having guns for two reasons. One is that if there is a market there will be suppliers if the profit is high enough. We only need to look at illegal drugs to see that process in vivid detail.
Reason two is that any normal person can build a gun with simple hand tools and supplies from places like Walmart, Home Depot, and Harbor Freight. (reference:http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/10/04/another-unknown-mass-produced-us-marked-smg-turns-up-in-europe/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss)
My take is therefore, you have not shown that there exists “societal injuries caused by otherwise easy access to guns” to there is nothing to balance.
And where do you get the idea that there is not a equal or greater benefit vs harm to society?
And consider that it isn’t even just this year’s harm vs good nor the last quarter century nor the last century we need to be selective about considering.
Good or harm goes beyond just year to date type assessments. It goes beyond a simple body count as well.
Many would argue it goes beyond the harm vs lives saved/protected discussion.
People, don’t argue with Paul. He’s an idiot. Arguing with an idiot is like playing chess with a pigeon. It will just s*** all over the board and strut around as if it won.
Rusty, I would be interested to hear from Mr. Markel directly, as he sometimes responds to posts here. There are plenty enough ad hominem responses below, and I am hoping that he doesn’t require the choir to respond on his behalf. At this point I am curious to see if his thoughtfulness matches that of his fans below or if he can rise above that and discuss thoughtfully. If otherwise, then I will be pleased to cede back to you.
Rusty, if you think you can write a better article then by all means feel free to write one and we can see how well you do.
How do you figure Mr. Markel is an idiot?? What facts do you have to back this accusation up??
Rusy, you have every right to disagree and to present you case in the best way you can. However, to call Paul names is certainly not productive or even entertaining.
I do not think that Paul is so set in his ways that if you have a better logical argument that he can not change is mind, but make your argument not just call people names.
RS…
And you must be the biggest Pigeon there is….
Oh really? So tell me whats your thoughts on the article. Lets see your big brain do some work.
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Ben Franklin
Firearms are a tool of liberty. Not just against tyrannical government but in defense of personal liberty. Google defines liberty “as the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views. ” Liberty is a basic human right. If you do not wish to defend liberty with the best tool avalible that is your choice. I will give all current and future human rights violators a warning when you try to take away my ability to defend myself you are as big of a threat as the criminal trying to take the lives of myself or loved ones.
If you are having a hard time believing my ability to defend myself with the best tool avalible is a human right i will cite the best definition of human rights i could source in a short period of time.
Although they were defined first by the Scottish philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) as absolute moral claims or entitlements to life, liberty, and property, the best-known expression of human rights is in the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776 which proclaims that “All men are by nature equally free andindependent and have certain inherentrights, of which, when they enter a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity.” Called also fundamental rights. See also civil rights and natural rights.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/human-rights.html
Pingback: gun control..if there's a gun I want contol - Kimber Forum
“*Authors Note: The following steps will only work if your subject has the capacity for rational thought. ” – is correct, however, there may be people that have capacity but have never exercised the skill enough to actually think in a rational manner. That is the group that we need to “spoon feed” to get them on board.
Pingback: SOTG 254 - Smashing the Gun Control Argument
Pingback: Smashing Gun Control Arguments in 3 Easy Steps - AmmoLand.com Shooting Sports News
Pingback: Smashing Gun Control Arguments in 3 Easy Steps | 1 In The Chamber
I can trash your three steps in one step:
I live in the UK, where the laws are essentially identical. However, we have no guns, and possession of one except in very specific circumstances, is illegal.
Guns do not offer a superior form of self defence if you opponent is also armed.
The likelihood of a fatality rises dramatically once firearms are involved, and there is no indicator to say the defendant will not be shot rather than the attacker; in fact there is a higher chance.
In the UK, we have 40x less gun-related deaths than the USA. Our crime figures are much the same. Note also the huge numbers of people shot accidentally, and even more involved in suicides.
The simple fact is, if you haven’t got a gun, you cannot shoot someone.
Sorry, we don’t take advice from disarmed tax-slaves. Have fun with the Sharia take over of Merry Ole England.
No guns, but a knife attack every 4 minutes, totaling 130,000 a year…
Don’t forget, “Get a Life, Bin that Knife!”, we will gladly keep our arms ready!
but the bad guy who has one can do whatever he likes to you. enjoy yourself.
But, but, but… you STILL have people killed by gun violence. And, if we start publishing more stories that show how guns have prevented crimes, you will find that for every gun death at least 50 lives were saved.
Believe it or not, many people have simply not thought about the gun control issue much. This is a good summary for introducing folks to thinking about the issue without the emotional baggage the media preloads their stories with.
In Switzerland, gun laws are much looser than America and Britain. It is the norm to walk down the street and see someone carrying a rifle or riding a bike with a gun. This is the case and yet, their gun related deaths are FAR lower than in either the U.S. or Britain. The issue is not the tool used because if there is no gun a person with intent to kill will use another tool. If every tool is taken away through laws a person with the intent will use their hands or feet as tools. Are we then to cut off their extremities? Again, it is not a gun issue, it is a heart issue. Because the person who wants to harm another will find a way to do it regardless. Meanwhile, the people who actually need them (and would use them properly), will be at a disadvantage. You mentioned gun accidents. Sure, there are gun accidents every year but there are WAY more car accidents every year. Should we then, start banning cars?
Also, in America there is such thing as the 2nd Amendment. This gives every american the right to bare arms (given as a defense against oppressive governments as a way to protect one’s life). Every american has this right. Much like using a car or an oven, it is up to every person to use these things responsibly. Taking away that RIGHT (which is what ppl who advocate for “control” are vying for, whether they admit it or not) violates a simple principle our founding fathers fought so hard for.
Your crime rates are not the same, you are far more likely to be the victim of a violent crime. As all of your violent crime rates went up when you banned firearms.
In a self defense situation, a fatality is always increased by the fact that someone fights back. But banning weapons means the smaller, less able person will be the injured or killed person. In the instance of a woman vs a man it evens the playing field.
If there was a tool that raised you above the other, criminals would use it… duh…
You have less gun murders, but a higher rate of murder. Your country is also trying to ban knives since that is now the tool of choice of your criminals.
Shut up.
UK citizen the USA kicked your ass over two hundred years ago and we could do it now also. Keep your advise to yourself.
Is this why not even bobbies carry firearms, and is “no guns” also why even your soldiers got chopped ?
Great points.
Criminals by their very nature will not abide existing laws let alone new ones.
Yeah okay, so I’m a peace officer, and a private gun owner and collector. And I do all of this while living in a country that has gun control. Oh, i’m also a Liberal so I’ll speak slow and limit the use of big words so that even the right wing conservatives will understand. I don’t know how you all became so brainwashed that you can’t understand the difference between gun control and gun ban. I would never dispute your right to defend yourself, but you don’t seem to want to even try and make it the slightest bit difficult for mental patients and criminals to get guns. You’re so busy talking about your right to bear arms that you don’t even bother with responsibility.Your gun homicide rate is 7 times that of Canada. BTW that rate means the total numbers are about 70 times. and even greater than other countries that have adopted some form of gun control without actually banning them. I also noticed someone mentioned loose gun laws in Switzerland. Since virtually everyone between 20 and 30 is a member of the military the Swiss are actually bound by stricter gun rules than many other countries. Now I know it’s pretty unlikely that America will ever do anything about the problem so I’ll wrap it up. I want to be ready to renew this discussion when the next group of students is tragically killed in a couple of days
Jim, since you have identified yourself as a liberal and although you didn’t actually state it your reply suggests you’re a Canadian. You used Canada’s gun laws as an example of a better way to combat violence. I have to assume you don’t fully understand the Constitution of the United States and the ammendments within. I believe you stated you’re a peace officer. How can you… (LEO) not understand human nature. It’s never the tool of the violent actions, it’s the person and their mindset.
Oh, if you are Canadian allow me to relay this true storie. A few years ago I booked a Canadian Archery Hunting Trip for Black Bears. As a backup for my own personal safety I was wanting to purchase Bear spray (large can of Pepper Spray) I was surprised to find out that it was also banned like handguns .
When I asked why non-leathel bear spray was banned? I was told the government was afraid of people using it on people. Clearly the Canadian government does not trust it’s citizens or care if they can defend themselves.
UK homicide rates are not accurate numbers because if multiple people are killed they count it as a single homicide. UK’s way of appearing safer than they are…
The UK only reports cases solved not cases reported and this is verifiable by reviewing the coroners reports vs home office crime data
Seeing how the war on drugs was so successfull and non-violent, why not a war on guns?
Criminals illegally obtain guns. The more easily they can obtain, the more likely they are to be used. The more guns that exist in homes and gun ranges, the more likely they are to be stolen by criminals. Is that not a clear enough argument that less guns in the general public’s possession lead to less criminals committing crimes with guns? It doesn’t stop them Wanting to use a gun, but if they can’t get one by breaking into the house on the corner before robbing the bank, or without paying a Very high price for a more rare commodity, aren’t they much less likely to feel empowered to commit said crime in the first place?
If there are less guns produced and distributed, there will be less ability to use those non-existent guns in a crime. QED.
Authors Note: The following steps will only work if your subject has the capacity for rational thought. When speaking to a liberal progressive, using logic, facts, and reason to support your position will not have any effect. Liberalism is a mental disease and progressives further their agenda through lies. An attempt argue logic and facts with a liberal is akin to teaching a pig to ride a bike. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
So what your saying, because I’m trying to make sure it’s clear is that if all the law abiding people gave up all of their guns and left themselves defenseless, then the guns belonging to the criminals and terrorists would just vanish and all crime would end. Is that it? Because we all know criminals and terrorists would never use knives or axes or bats or swords to commit crimes and terrorist acts.
So, there was no violence before guns were invented? How naive.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 105-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old grandmother on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
People who object to weapons aren’t abolishing violence, they’re begging for rule by brute force, where the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically ‘right.’ Guns ended that, and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work.
If a gun was never made it can’t be used as a lethal weapon. Is there an error in that logic?
Quit deficatng unicorn turds and fairy dust. Guns do exist wake up. Here on this site we dont play the what if imaginary game. We dont put up with blah blah blah “but…” blah blah. We deal in facts and reason not the hippy liberal feel good nonsense. If you are misguided by feelings and imaginary circumstances post your retoric else where.
Oh so one should only post statements that you agree with. Dumb ass.
John C, maybe reading comprehension is your issue. I said we deal with facts and reason clearly your response it evidence that you react without either using emotion over logic and using obscene language because you lack the vocabulary to use an original insult. I have no problem engaging in conversation with an honest intellectual person. You are neither. Hope you enjoy the rest of your day.
Jvk
Your logic is escaping you…
Your logic is the same as saying:
If a Rock hadn’t been formed during the big bang then Cain wouldn’t have killed Able?????
Facts and logic ? Cain and able? Gimmie a break with your Fairy tales. We’ve already been told to speak of logical and factual things. What’s more logical than saying that if a gun wasn’t built in the first place due to lower demands for personal firearms, then that gun cannot take anyone’s life? Yes, criminals might have to resort to much less efficient ways of committing murder like sneaking up behind someone with a rock or getting close enough to use a knife. Exactly my point. How many lives can that criminal take with that rock, or heck, a whole magazine… I mean pile… of rocks before someone could restrain him? Compare that to a gun. Yes it makes the 90 pound lady just as capable of taking a life as the big burly brute she’s murdering. How is making more people more deadly a good thing? Don’t like what I’m saying? Then try thinking before typing a reasonably logical response.
Last year, in Kunming China, a few men killed 33 people and injured another 130 people in a railway station with nothing but knives. This is no fairy tail. It actually happened! Outlawing the tool that someone uses to commit an act of violence contrary to law, doesn’t stop the violence. The problem with your logic is that it isn’t based in reality. You need a reality check. There are over 310 million guns on the street in the US. They aren’t going to magically disappear! In fact, trying to take them from people would result in bloodshed the likes of which human kind has never seen. Foreign manufacturers produce another 2.84 million guns per year. US manufacturers produce another 5.5 million guns each year. If we could make all the legal guns go away today (which can’t be done), by tomorrow morning, there would be thousands of new guns! Guns are not complicated machines, they are actually fairly simple. I could build a rudimentary gun in my garage with common items that I can purchase at my local home depot in a matter of hours. Guns don’t take lives. People who don’t value life do! By your logic, making cocaine illegal made it impossible to buy, but somehow, we still have thousands of people using cocaine. Wake up my friend. Here is a very simple fact. The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy with a gun at the scene. If more good people had guns, then the bad guys probably wouldn’t even try to shoot up a school, movie theater, or mall. They are twisted, but they aren’t stupid! Why do you think all these shootings happen in gun free zones? In your mind, outlawing guns would make everyone safer, but in the real world, disarming the law abiding means the bad guys could act violently (with or without a gun) and no one could stop them. That doesn’t sound like a good place to me. On a side note, you asked how many people 1 man could kill without a gun… Here is an example Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people, including 19 children under age 6, and injured an additional 680 people and he didn’t use a gun! Evil people will kill innocent people. It happens in every country all over the world. Even in places where guns are banned. If you really want to stop school shootings. put some armed people in the schools. If you want to see a drastic drop in the number of mass shooting events, end the concept of gun free zones, and let good people carry their guns everywhere all the time.
this is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. Look into other countries that have disarmed their citizens and compare their crime rates. Almost every country that has disarm their citizens, the crime rate has gone up. Criminals have access to guns whether we do or not. Not all criminals get their guns from breaking and entering they have other connections. I personally would rather have a gun to protect myself and my family then to hope a police officer gets to my home before I die. A lot can happen in 5 minutes. If you do not believe in owning handguns or other weapons far be it for me to tell you how to live your life, but I believe in owning guns so don’t tell me how to live mine. opinions are like assholes everyone has one and most are full of crap
Have you looked at Britain .Police used to carry clubs and not guns before they took everyone’s guns .Now the police carry fully automatic weapons .
Here is the first question. When did logic go out the windows?
WOW How clueless can these arguments be? This person should be forced to take a basic logic class. IN any case this article is incredibly deceptive and wrong.
++++First foolish argument
“#1 Self-Defense
Ask you subject whether or not a man or a woman (any human being) has a legitimate right to self-defense. Does a person posses the legal right to defend themselves against unlawful attack?”
++++++++
Actually what the person is trying to ask is “Does a person posses the legal right to defend themselves against unlawful attack USING ANY FORCE HE CHOOSES” The author has made this absolute. If Bill gates Feels he needs a ATOM bomb to “defend himself” does he not have the “right” to “defend themselves against unlawful attack?”
Yes he does have a right to defend himself but NOT by any means and our system and every other 1st world system establishes that this right is NOT an absolute right. You cant have a stinger missile in the US just because you feel you need it to defend yourself.
Number 1 is patently FALSE and foolish
++++++
#2 The Police
Ask the subject if it is the responsibility of the state, the police, to protect you (the people) from criminal attacks. Do you believe that the police are required to protect you by law? Unless they have been previously educated, your subject may naively respond to the effect that yes, the police must protect you, it is the law.
It is in fact NOT the law that the state, the police, protect individual citizens from attack or harm. In Warren vs. District of Columbia the court found that the D.C. police “owe no specific duty” to protect individuals from criminal harm. Therefore the District was held harmless. Warren was a woman who, along with her two female roommates, was brutalized horribly after the D.C. police were called but never arrived to help.
++++++++++++
Again the story and the conclusion is wrong. the police did respond. But they did not find the criminals. What the country found is there was no individual legal civil liability here. There is NO Manhattan supreme court. And the linked references are to a blog.
If you look at the case, what is alleged is that EVEN THOUGH THE POLICE THOUGHT THE ATTACKER was Armed with a gun and ducked for cover, the plaintiff said they should have ignored the danger to themselves. The “seconds’ it took to recognize the attacker did not have a gun was what was at issue. It is easy to see that neither of these cases say the “police does not have to protect you”
Number 2 is patently FALSE and an attempt to deceive
Here are the cases which, of course, the author did not link to.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9108468254125174344&q=warren-v-district-of-columbia&hl=en&as_sdt=2006
http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/fcas/fcas_docs/2013JUL/3001010882012002SCIV.pdf
+++++++
3 Tools
Arriving safely at this point with our subject, we will reinforce the fact that self-defense is a human right and that the state does not have a legal duty to protect individual citizens from criminal harm. Now it is time to discuss the tools. This step will include a short battery of questions.
If someone is trying to kill you or a loved one, is it legal to use a hammer as a tool to stop them? …is it legal to use a knife to stop them? …a gun to stop them? …a coffee pot to stop them?
+++++
The author starts with the false idea that “self -defense” is a human right THEREFORE it must be ABSOLUTE.
Can you use a Atom bomb to defend yourself? Can you build a huge black powder bomb and say “I was using it to defend myself”?
Yes, you make a lot of sense. No one should argue for suicide by atomic bomb as a means of self defense. I agree with you on that. I just don’t have the time nor energy to laugh at this. Bye.
I’m pro 2a and I’m also a Liberal. You’re full of yourself and your attitude sucks. Liberalism is a mental disease just because you disagree? Let’s see your psychology degree. You’re an egotistical ass and don’t have a clue on how to actually debate. People like you are part of the problem, if not the majority of it. You don’t know how to have discussions and Instead have the Bullshit attitude of “seeing as I’m right and you disagree, you must be wrong” and that closed minded attitude solves nothing.
Alan, your comments consist of nothing more than an ad hominem attack. Stop the childish name calling and grow up.
Question, How many NRA members have been convicted of murder?
I find it strange that abortion kills, on average, 600 lives a day. When discussed I am told it is the law of the land to sit down and shut up. Now the courts have deemed homosexual marriage legal and when brought up I am told it is the law of the land to sit down and shut up.
In the papers that started this country personal protection (firearms) were only second to the press, our freedom of religion, our freedom to speak (out against the gov), the right to assemble (again to speak out against the gov) and the ability to talk to the gov about our
grievances. The right to bear firearms is one of the original laws of the land, not manufactured like the others I mentioned but we are not allowed to use the law of the land argument. Instead we are told it is old and useless and has no value in our modern society.
On this I will not shut up and sit down. I am not very old and this gun control movement
is very young (30 yrs.?). No matter what is said this I believe the progressives do not want us disarmed because they have our best interest at heart. Sorry for rambling, just my thoughts.
Amazing article! Spot on.
Pingback: Look out 2015 assault wepons ban house bill - Page 18 - Utah Wildlife Network
Pingback: Smashing the Gun Control Argument in 3 Easy Steps
This should more then likely come in handy.
This is very to the point. Most people who have a mindset that was brainwashed by their high school and college teachers will have a closed mind to the obvious truths in front of them, that is until life happens to wake them up. Some Americans, or a lot, have the need to Follow the crowd, to be Right, to Sound smart and end up not using their own minds to figure things out.
Awesome …just awesome
This is retarded
why? do you need it explained in simpler terms?
The grammar and spelling needs to be checked and changed! Otherwise, good information!
Great read. Everyone should read it. My husband and I have purchased a few “Faith and the Patriot” in the pass 3 months and gave the to some good friends. They’re very happy we thought of them, to talk with and be on the receiving end of the book. Thank you.
Good read. Everyone should be aware that they have the “right” of self defense!
Straight to the point and simple. It will shut up the whips.
Our laws in England say if someone breaks into your home you are allowed to use reasonable force .yeh right I’d bloody make sure they didn’t walk out life for a life my friend.
Thanks, lil reminders are what all people need, idiots too! Can’t we all just get…?
Good read, good questions to ask I live (for now) in Commiefornia, so common sense arguments are wasted breath here (although I try).
Ex act ly
Very good & informative read
I will be signing up for the grad program as soon as I have the spare cash…..
This is very helpful now. Also will be for the future. Thank you!
Great stuff, something that we should always be refreshing ourselves with these things so we will be ready if it ever occurs to us.