Law Enforcement Group: Private Gun Ownership Reduces Crime, Keeps People Safe
It’s almost like the founders, as well as proponents of the original intent of the 2nd amendment, have had it right all along.
When sexual assaults started rising in Orlando, Fla., in 1986, police officers noticed women were arming themselves, so they launched a firearms safety course for them. Over the next 12 months, sexual assaults plummeted by 88 percent, burglaries fell by 25 percent and not one of the 2,500 women who took the course fired a gun in a confrontation.
And that, says a new brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court by police officers and prosecutors in a controversial gun-ban dispute, is why gun ownership is important and should be available to individuals in the United States.
The arguments come in an amicus brief submitted by the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, whose spokesman, Ted Deeds, told WND there now are 92 different law enforcement voices speaking together to the Supreme Court in the Heller case.
Within the past few years Florida also instituted a “stand your ground” law which protected from prosecution those who attacked back when attacked by someone else. It was a significant expansion of self defense and gun rights. When the law was being considered the anti-gun zealots predicted a return to the “wild west” in Florida with gunslingers shooting up towns and foolhardy gun novices accidentally offing themselves, their loved ones and their neighbors. That turned out to not be true at all.
In 2005, the year the “stand your ground” bill passed in Florida, there were 762,859 violent crimes in Florida. In 2007 there were 638,256 despite an increase in the state’s population. Was that reduction in violent crime attributable to the stand your ground bill making it easier for citizens to defend themselves? Maybe yes, maybe no, but at the very least we can conclude that the anti-gun zealots were dead wrong in their dire predictions.
This country was founded upon the idea that power was safest when distributed “to the people.” I fail to see why the power to protect ones body, property and loved ones is any exception to that ideal.












