The Last Victim.

In contemplating crime and in so-called crime prevention, some experts tend to think in terms of the actions of the criminals as acts in a vacuum. America tries – in many places, but not all places – to pre-think violence and to prevent it societally through analysis, stupid ineffectual policies, money . . .

In chasing crime, new technologies emerge to identify people more – not necessarily bad guys – and in the process these hi-tech solutions sweep the innocent in with the suspects. The potential for terrible defamation, trauma, unjust expense and injustice is horribly on the increase. In this, everyone is a suspect until vetted. [If you like mistaken no-fly lists and computer mistakes that won’t recognize your PIN number, you’ll love the fingerprint feature attached to the new RFID tags coming out!]

Other because-the-computer-says-so nightmares are in the making. No help here. Or then, for that matter.

Re-defining and suspicioning reasonable actions as new crimes isn’t fighting crime, is it? Of course it isn’t.

There’s an answer older than Democrats and Republicans both.

In self-defense, we deal with the beast face-to-face, in real time, making decisions of real consequence, no longer operating on social theory, social engineering or academic dissertation.

In too many states of the Union, self-defense is the most neglected area of fighting crime.

For self-defense would stop crime. Each case can keep the situation from escalating, and each case can stop future crime by assertively being what we liberty enthusiasts refer to as being the predator’s last victim.

Indeed.

Nobody’s talking about shooting to kill in every case, but stopping in nearly every case. Sometimes, this means holding for police. Superior force works.


Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.
— George Bernard Shaw


The death penalty in America can be determined to be a deterrent if only given the chance. It is not even given that chance in California, for instance, because liberals fear that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and a swift and sure execution of a death warrant will deter very well. [Forgetting for the moment that many violent criminals aren’t caught and that most murders aren't solved, if a robber knew his warrant would be executed under the felony murder rule inside of 24-months of his trial, I bet he wouldn’t kill during his robbery. What do you think?]

In an on-air altercation on Larry King this week, actor and activist Mike Farrell told moralist and talk show host Dennis Prager that [paraphrased] Prager must be licking his lips at the thought of executing another human being.

Pardon me, but how does Farrell’s salivary glands operate at the thought of yet another victim in jail alongside in-house murderers or victims outside of incarceration at the hands of a serial rapist, serial killer or serial anything as long as the execution of the warrant is delayed? [For some, incarceration means only a re-location of a base of operations and some fresh targets in-house as the list of victims grows.] How many people have to die or have their lives tragically changed before Farrell’s mouth stops watering at such injustice on the broader, unrelenting scale? Farrell’s glands must be deranged: Farrell should be shedding tears for victims instead of forgetting them and accusing others of drooling at the thought of justice. [Liberals and Stockholm Syndrome again?? Does Farrell perceive himself trapped by criminals (as some of us do) such that he identifies with them as a coping mechanism? Just a thought.]

In a press release of today, James Brady of the anti-household Brady's announced:

"We need to make it tougher for criminals to get guns. The best way to do that is to pass laws to make it easier to prosecute gun traffickers by lowering the number of guns required to prove a crime, and pass laws that force unscrupulous gun dealers to change their behavior. Speaker Silver's proposal has both of these components. The Governor and the State Senate should adopt this approach. New York should toughen the penalties, but also take real steps to dry up the sources of crime guns."

Jim – not going to happen. Criminals don’t obey laws. And most aren't even caught. You know what happens when they are caught, Jim: they live at the Graybar Country Club for a stay, stay of execution, that is. The man who shot you didn’t obey laws. He was not a law-abiding citizen, but a criminal. Wise up. What you are looking for in solace and justice - and maybe even closure - will not be found at the bottom of yet another gun law that applies only to the honest. Incidentally, Jim, do you have a bodyguard? Anyone who has a bodyguard obviously believes in superior force. Guns.

As with the death penalty, the refusal to endorse personal self-defense is, as usual, to hide the ball, one of the most underhanded, bad faith things an American party can do. To go to self-defense would be to introduce a powerful deterrence, would it not?

A very effective deterrence.

Victimization continues where self-defense is officially discouraged, and with the help of glandularly deranged activists. Farrell must be licking his lips at the thought of so many victims kept, by his help, at the mercy of serial predators.

Yet liberals believe in guns and liberty and self-defense when they hire armed bodyguards and keep them near.

For liberals, the idea is not to bring the reign of violence to an end, but to keep it going for political purposes, to hide the ball as if it weren't an effective solution. The ‘ball’ is armed self-defense, of course.

For, many of their loyal constituents will be the next and the next in a long line of victims until someone elects to be that predator’s last victim.

_______________________________________________

John Longenecker is author of Transfer Of Wealth – The Case For Nationwide Concealed Carry, now available worldwide.