Once again the statistics are skewed to drag guns through the mud without regard for the person squeezing the trigger. How often do we hear that guns are “just bad” and that “no one with a gun can be trusted”?
So, it continues. The latest victim of the hypnotizing distortion by the anti-freedom left is David Stern, lawyer and commissioner of the NBA. He has stated that gun ownership for the purposes of protecting one’s home is alright but that using a gun to defend one’s person is not.
Arguably, using a gun to protect your house is more about protecting yourself than it is keeping someone from making off with your property. Thus, if personal protection is justifiable at home then why is it unjustifiable outside of one’s home?
“It’s a pretty, I think, widely accepted statistic that if you carry a gun, your chances of being shot by one increase dramatically.” His statement is purely that of a trained lawyer.
Primarily, it betrays its own intent denying any facts that can be referenced. Because he states that such an idea is widely accepted, his listeners can accept that it is true without seeing any actual numbers or surveys. This is a common tactic used in the arguments about global warming and war and abortion and frankly, every other major disagreement between the left and the right.
The second dispute against his statement is that he does not give any explanation as to why those statistics might be true. Further on in his statements he declares that guns do not make people safe but that they are more dangerous for those who carry them. Let us not define with the object of definition. Essentially the numbers are flawed even if they support his beliefs.
The notion that those who do not carry guns are safe because they do not is fundamentally at odds with reality. The truth of the matter is that most people do not carry guns because it does not occur to them that it might be necessary at some point. We live in a society that is safe enough that most everyone can live without ever needing a gun (or a police officer if you are a liberal) to protect us. No gun is necessary for many people but who is to say who exactly will need one?
On the other side of that idea is this false concept that carrying a gun makes you more likely to be shot by one is demonstrably inaccurate. Is it that people conceal guns on their person and then are somehow more likely to be singled out for mugging or rape or murder? No, the fact of the matter is that the more likely someone is to be a victim of a crime the more likely they are to take steps to protect themselves. Inevitably, one finds that many people are likely to be shot but those who take the responsibility for their own protection, learn how to use a firearm and properly carry a gun, concealed and licensed are less likely to be victims and more likely to be survivors.
Evidently, those statistics argue that concealed carry is used properly by people who need it to protect themselves from criminals. The real question is why NBA players are any less likely to need a firearm than the average citizen. Arguably, with all the traveling from arena to arena, an NBA player is more out of place and at risk than the average citizen going to the office everyday. If the briefcase wielding American who demonstrates responsibility can provide assurance of his own protection, why cannot a professional sports player do the same?
