If anything, it is a reminder that we were and still are in war of attrition and there is no time limit, not it is a game of instant gratification or else.  We have made tremendous advances and we must keep doing so without demanding unreachable goals at this time. And for the love of God, just because we got a huge success with Bruen does not mean we are all set and do not need to change state laws. Never forget Roe v. Wade’s reversal and how they liberals are losing their mind because they never cared to assert it in the local laws and states constitutions.

Never stop moving forward.

Spread the love

By Miguel.GFZ

Semi-retired like Vito Corleone before the heart attack. Consiglieri to J.Kb and AWA. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.

2 thoughts on “Miguel’s Hit and Run: A Miami Herald editorial that did not age well.”
  1. It’s interesting to see here the infamous tired argument that more people are killed using guns in the household than the number of home invaders killed by those guns used for defense.
    Neil Schulman, in “Stopping Power” discussed that argument at some length. He points out that it’s meaningless because only about 2% of defensive gun use results in the death of the attacker. But he adds that the argument is offensive to honest people, because it essentially claims that the goal of self defense is the death of the attacker. He doesn’t state an opinion on whether this misstatement is intentional; I do have an opinion, that indeed it is.

    1. Found it. It’s a chapter in Stopping Power, but written by Gary Kleck and abridged from his book “Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control”. He refers to it as the “Nonsense Ratio”:
      What is so deceptive about the ratio is the hint that killing burglars or intruders is somehow a “benefit” to the householder. This is both morally offensive and factually inaccurate.
      Gun owners do not keep guns for the sake of having a chance to “bag a burglar.”
      This implied cost-benefit ratio is so meaningless that it can fairly be dubbed the “Nonsense Ratio.”

Login or register to comment.