In the Gravest Extreme: The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection

January 10, 2016 - Comment

When I decided to write this book, I resolved not to fill it with grisly cases of criminals shot by citizens in self-defense. Those who believe that the private citizen should not be permitted to possess defensive firearms rely heavily on anecdotes of murder for shock effect; Carl Bakal’s “No Right to Bear arms” is

Buy Now! $15.95Amazon.com Price
(as of January 17, 2018 8:34 pm EST - Details)

When I decided to write this book, I resolved not to fill it with grisly cases of criminals shot by citizens in self-defense. Those who believe that the private citizen should not be permitted to possess defensive firearms rely heavily on anecdotes of murder for shock effect; Carl Bakal’s “No Right to Bear arms” is a case in point. Actually, almost every incedent Bakal and the others depict can be argued either way. Their opinion is that each atrocity could have been averted if the assailants could have been prevented from having guns; my contention is that almost every one could have been prevented or mitigated had the intended victims been armed and able to fight back against their murderers. An exception is the accicdental shooting, a statistically unlikely occurence that can, in my opinion, be eliminated by proper training.
This book makes no attempt to convince the private citizen to acquire or carry firearms. It speaks to those who have already made the decision to do so, and endeavors only to advise them in the legal, ethical, and practical use of the deadly weapons they already own.
The above was taken from part of the introduction from the book. 131 pages Gluded Softcover.

Product Features

  • Used Book in Good Condition

Comments

M. P. Procter Sr. says:

There are books that everyone should read, this is one While there are some technical aspects of firearms law that are clearly outdated, the principles are thought-provoking and still apply. What I found interesting is that the author repeatedly states that it is preferable to avoid situations where one would have to use a defensive firearm. That is stated throughout the book. And he backs that up with situations where one could be charged with various degrees of murder, manslaughter, etc.For example, you’re walking down the street and someone insults you. Do you get into it with them, or just keep going? He explains that since you are carrying a firearm, it is your responsibility to avoid having to use it, if possible. So getting into an arguement with some punk because he called you a name, which could escalate into something which might cause you to draw your weapon, must be avoided. Legally, it could be devisitating.But he doesn’t shy away from using it when absolutely necessary. One carries a firearm for a reason, and…

(wayne@endor.com) says:

A no nonsense approach to grave decisions, must read! 0

Write a comment

*