Do you have the Right to Defend Yourself? Part 3 in the Right to Protect Yourself

Self-defense is a basic right.* If someone attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself. Yet strict gun control regulations interfere with that right because ordinary citizens abide by the law while criminals acquire guns illegally. That leaves honest people at a distinct disadvantage – how can the police be immediately at every scene whenever desperately needed?

Does Banning Guns Solve the Problem? Part 4 in the Right to Protect Yourself

Does Banning guns solve the problem?
Does banning guns work to eliminate people’s violence. The UK experience is instructive. Now Britain enforces a near-total ban on guns, the Telegraph reports that: “The United Kingdom is the violent crime capital of Europe and has one of the highest rates of violence in the world, worse even than America, according to the European Commission.*”

How Effective are Gun Bans Overseas? Part 7 in the Right to Protect Yourself

The USA is not alone in facing this problem of mentally deranged individuals and criminals. Both Britain and Australia suffered mass shootings in the 1980s and 1990s, despite their already stringent gun laws. Both countries nevertheless decided that even stricter gun control was the most effective answer. Their experiences are enlightening.

The Slaughter Continues to Increase, Despite More Severe Gun Laws. Part 3 in The Right Response?

In the article, Guns, Mental Illness and Newtown, the Wall Street Journal* reports there were 18 random mass shootings in the 1980s, 54 in the 1990s, and 87 random mass shootings in the 2000s. In 2012, just one year not a whole decade, the Washington Post lists 14 cases of mass shootings. Are restrictive gun laws producing the desired effect? Or are the increasingly stringent gun bans worsening the number of massacres?