The Life-and-Death Cost of Gun Control

[PoliticalChic]

The Life-and-Death Cost of Gun Control
By John R. Lott, Jr.
Author/Senior Research Scholar, University of Maryland
FoxNews
November 2, 2008

Banning guns is in the news. India practically bans guns, but that didn’t stop the horrific Muslim terrorist attacks this last week.

A football player concerned for his safety violates New York City’s tough gun control regulations by carrying a concealed handgun, and people call for everything from banning NFL players from carrying guns to demanding that the athlete serve many years in jail.

When police can’t promise to protect law-abiding citizens such Plaxico Burress or the victims in India, why don’t we allow people the right to protect themselves?

Where is the sympathy or debate in either case over letting people defend themselves? Given that the terrorists smuggled their machine guns in with them, would anyone argue that India’s extremely strict gun licensing and artificially high prices for guns helped prevent the terrorist attacks? In fact, the reverse is more likely the case.

Would Plaxico Burress, the New York Giant’s receiver who was arrested yesterday, really have been safer just trusting the police to protect him?

Read more below.

The Life-and-Death Cost of Gun Control « FOX Forum « FOXNews.com

 

[user_name_guest]

If you taught all individuals moral/ethical principles, maybe he won't pull a trigger on another human. After all, it takes a finger + a trigger = to kill or harm another human being. They created religion to prevent such wrongs. However, religion also provide us another reason to kill another. We need reasons to hurt someone.