Over the past fifty years, at least a half-million Americans, and perhaps many more, have died prematurely due to ill-designed and badly executed liberal programs. The causes, as I reveal in detail in
Death by Liberalism, range from the criminal justice "reforms" of the 1960s, which triggered a crime wave that killed up to 268,000 Americans, to government-mandated fuel standards responsible for up to 125,000 lives. At least a thousand people are murdered each year by the derelict insane, with many deinstitutionalized lunatics dying as well, giving us a total of as many as 70,000 deaths. The number of deaths of children under the "protection" of state child care agencies is unknown (largely concealed by "privacy" laws) but must total in the thousands. (Twenty-one children died in this manner last year in Los Angeles County alone.)
All this strikes very close to home. There are few families that have not suffered a death from one of these causes over the last half-century. It's horrifying to consider that our lives are threatened by the actions of our own government, but we must consider it or risk becoming victims. How do we protect ourselves against democide?
When confronted with a risk, we analyze it and learn as much as we can in order to take the proper steps to avoid it. The process is no different here, even with the vast power of the government involved. While democide operates on a national scale, it should not be taken as overwhelming for that reason alone. Comprising small-scale elements, it is huge only in the aggregate. Responding to the threat is far from hopeless.
Crime - Crime remains the chief democidal killer. We're still living in the backwash of the great crime explosion of the late 20th century, triggered by interference with the criminal justice system by progressive judges and Supreme Court justices. Such cases as Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona were intended to "level the playing field" between law enforcement and criminals. This they did, with the innocent public paying the price.
Many municipalities, courts, and police forces have not learned the lesson, and they all continue applying failed policies. In such cases, citizens must take their own protection in hand.
Self-defense is the key. "Self-defense" means weapons -- weapons that are effective at a distance, that will fend off potential criminals, that will, if possible, end the confrontation with no escalation to higher levels of violence. Only one item meets this standard: the handgun.
It is possible to criticize ownership and use of handguns on a number of grounds. We will not debate this. Some of these contentions are exaggerated, butg some are well-taken -- the threat of suicide and particularly the possibility of children toying with a loaded gun are two examples.
But as the saying goes, you may need a gun only once in your life, but when you need it, nothing else will do. Drawbacks of gun ownership are similar in nature to the drawbacks of many other common items, such as cars and electrical appliances. All are dangerous, even deadly in certain circumstances. But dangers can be minimized. Despite accidents and misadventures, it remains true that guns are unexcelled at what they do, which is to end criminal activity. According to John Lott, the leading expert on gun use, guns are utilized in confrontations with criminals up to 3 million times a year. In most cases, the simple appearance of a gun causes a felon to flee. No shot is fired, and no one is hurt.
The first order of business is to study the firearms laws of your jurisdiction. Several states and many cities have adapted the anti-gun position as policy and expressed it in law, which is often enforced with far greater ferocity that any laws aimed at actual criminals. It is no coincidence that these jurisdictions (New York City, Chicago, and the District of Columbia among them) include some of the most liberal areas in the country. Under such circumstances, the dangers presented by legal sanctions must be carefully balanced against those presented by criminals.
On purchasing a gun, care must be given to the choice of model, caliber, size, and other important factors. For instance, there are some calibers too powerful for a woman to handle. Also, a gun featuring a hammer may become entangled with clothing, purse straps, and so on. Other factors include the difference between double and single action, concealability, and size.
Obtain a carrying permit and whatever other paperwork is necessary. Take gun safety, marksmanship, and self-defense courses. Purchase of a gun safe or locking system is advisable.
Familiarize yourself with the danger levels of various neighborhoods as revealed by recent crime rates. (Somebody wishing to perform a valuable public service might consider establishing websites for each municipality charting crime rates in various neighborhoods and providing warnings of criminal activity). Take care as to where you are traveling and the routes you choose, along with your destination. Patronizing bars in grubby neighborhoods is never a good idea.
Such steps taken by enough Americans would deter crime by raising the cost of doing business among felons. It would also take the pressure off police forces (although most police oppose an armed populace, operating under the assumption that cops and "civilians," as they refer to us, exist in a state of open war), and ease budget problems in many municipalities. The fact that any such activity by law-abiding citizens is widely discouraged is simply one more example of human perversity.
Such incidents as the recent Tucson shootings, though grounds for serious reflection on a number of counts, do not alter the primary case. Once again, according to John Lott, a large number of such incidents have been curtailed by individuals wielding legal weapons.
Cars -
