Ot would we all be safer if everyone were armed?

[CA renter]

[quote=captcha]Did you provision for illegally owned firearm? Or do Black people use eye gouging and testicular kicks to kill each other in DC? Once the authorities in Chicago and D.C. see this analysis they’ll solve their problem by arming everyone.

Ex-scaredy asked if a gun in every hand would make everyone feel safer. I say it might make people feel safe, but it will not truly make them safe. Instead, disturbed people (and apparently big bad black dudes not involved with NFL or NBA) will have a tool to project their disturbance onto soccer moms with three kids on the back seat and a gun in the attic safe.

I totally get TG’s “that’s the way I like it and if you don’t like that it’s your problem, not mine” position. But I don’t think adults need to pretend that somehow their toys are what’s keeping them safe.[/quote]

These “disturbed people” will always have tools at their disposal: knives, guns, rope, blunt objects, their hands or feet, etc. The most “disturbed” murderers (especially serial killers) tend to prefer “close-combat tools” rather than impersonal guns.

If you hear someone breaking into your house, would you rather have a bat or a gun in your hand? Guns are “the great equalizer,” and can afford women (and men who are not physical fighters) the only chance — however slight — of subduing their attackers.

Crime and murder have been with us for all of human history. Banning guns does not deter crime, and it certainly does not deter people from killing. Creating a peaceful, egalitarian society, with a sufficient social safety net is the best defense against violent criminals, IMHO; yet even in this type of society, I would prefer that people had the means to defend themselves against those who are, nonetheless, determined to be violent.

[jpinpb]

Thank you, CAR

[jpinpb]

Thank you, CAR

[jpinpb]

Thank you, CAR

[jpinpb]

Thank you, CAR

[jpinpb]

Thank you, CAR

[Anonymous]

So much for the good ol’ days:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/23/nation/la-na-tombstone-20110123

And one fact is usually ignored: Back then, Tombstone had far stricter gun control than it does today. In fact, the American West’s most infamous gun battle erupted when the marshal tried to enforce a local ordinance that barred carrying firearms in public. A judge had fined one of the victims $25 earlier that day for packing a pistol.

[Anonymous]

So much for the good ol’ days:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/23/nation/la-na-tombstone-20110123

And one fact is usually ignored: Back then, Tombstone had far stricter gun control than it does today. In fact, the American West’s most infamous gun battle erupted when the marshal tried to enforce a local ordinance that barred carrying firearms in public. A judge had fined one of the victims $25 earlier that day for packing a pistol.

[Anonymous]

So much for the good ol’ days:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/23/nation/la-na-tombstone-20110123

And one fact is usually ignored: Back then, Tombstone had far stricter gun control than it does today. In fact, the American West’s most infamous gun battle erupted when the marshal tried to enforce a local ordinance that barred carrying firearms in public. A judge had fined one of the victims $25 earlier that day for packing a pistol.

[Anonymous]

So much for the good ol’ days:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/23/nation/la-na-tombstone-20110123

And one fact is usually ignored: Back then, Tombstone had far stricter gun control than it does today. In fact, the American West’s most infamous gun battle erupted when the marshal tried to enforce a local ordinance that barred carrying firearms in public. A judge had fined one of the victims $25 earlier that day for packing a pistol.

[Anonymous]

So much for the good ol’ days:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/23/nation/la-na-tombstone-20110123

And one fact is usually ignored: Back then, Tombstone had far stricter gun control than it does today. In fact, the American West’s most infamous gun battle erupted when the marshal tried to enforce a local ordinance that barred carrying firearms in public. A judge had fined one of the victims $25 earlier that day for packing a pistol.

[all]

[quote=CA renter]
These “disturbed people” will always have tools at their disposal: knives, guns, rope, blunt objects, their hands or feet, etc. The most “disturbed” murderers (especially serial killers) tend to prefer “close-combat tools” rather than impersonal guns.

If you hear someone breaking into your house, would you rather have a bat or a gun in your hand? Guns are “the great equalizer,” and can afford women (and men who are not physical fighters) the only chance — however slight — of subduing their attackers.
[/quote]

One of my major points is that you likely won’t have access to your firearm if you ever need it.

I spent a little over a year in military (mandatory draft) and I’m familiar with the utilitarian value of guns. I also used to hunt large game with my father and my grandfather and I am familiar with the entertaining value of guns.
Obviously, I received some basic firearms training.

In a hypothetical situation where an armed person determined to murder me or members of my family is trying to enter my house I’d rather have a gun than a bat.

However, I believe that an alarm, a dog and a bat provide sufficient protection while reducing the danger of a nosy kid hurting itself (my cousin never fully recovered from shooting himself in the left hand while playing with my uncle’s handgun).

[quote=CA renter]
Crime and murder have been with us for all of human history. Banning guns does not deter crime, and it certainly does not deter people from killing. Creating a peaceful, egalitarian society, with a sufficient social safety net is the best defense against violent criminals, IMHO; yet even in this type of society, I would prefer that people had the means to defend themselves against those who are, nonetheless, determined to be violent.[/quote]

I agree with all that. I just don’t believe that a gun in every hand helps in any way.

[all]

[quote=CA renter]
These “disturbed people” will always have tools at their disposal: knives, guns, rope, blunt objects, their hands or feet, etc. The most “disturbed” murderers (especially serial killers) tend to prefer “close-combat tools” rather than impersonal guns.

If you hear someone breaking into your house, would you rather have a bat or a gun in your hand? Guns are “the great equalizer,” and can afford women (and men who are not physical fighters) the only chance — however slight — of subduing their attackers.
[/quote]

One of my major points is that you likely won’t have access to your firearm if you ever need it.

I spent a little over a year in military (mandatory draft) and I’m familiar with the utilitarian value of guns. I also used to hunt large game with my father and my grandfather and I am familiar with the entertaining value of guns.
Obviously, I received some basic firearms training.

In a hypothetical situation where an armed person determined to murder me or members of my family is trying to enter my house I’d rather have a gun than a bat.

However, I believe that an alarm, a dog and a bat provide sufficient protection while reducing the danger of a nosy kid hurting itself (my cousin never fully recovered from shooting himself in the left hand while playing with my uncle’s handgun).

[quote=CA renter]
Crime and murder have been with us for all of human history. Banning guns does not deter crime, and it certainly does not deter people from killing. Creating a peaceful, egalitarian society, with a sufficient social safety net is the best defense against violent criminals, IMHO; yet even in this type of society, I would prefer that people had the means to defend themselves against those who are, nonetheless, determined to be violent.[/quote]

I agree with all that. I just don’t believe that a gun in every hand helps in any way.

[all]

[quote=CA renter]
These “disturbed people” will always have tools at their disposal: knives, guns, rope, blunt objects, their hands or feet, etc. The most “disturbed” murderers (especially serial killers) tend to prefer “close-combat tools” rather than impersonal guns.

If you hear someone breaking into your house, would you rather have a bat or a gun in your hand? Guns are “the great equalizer,” and can afford women (and men who are not physical fighters) the only chance — however slight — of subduing their attackers.
[/quote]

One of my major points is that you likely won’t have access to your firearm if you ever need it.

I spent a little over a year in military (mandatory draft) and I’m familiar with the utilitarian value of guns. I also used to hunt large game with my father and my grandfather and I am familiar with the entertaining value of guns.
Obviously, I received some basic firearms training.

In a hypothetical situation where an armed person determined to murder me or members of my family is trying to enter my house I’d rather have a gun than a bat.

However, I believe that an alarm, a dog and a bat provide sufficient protection while reducing the danger of a nosy kid hurting itself (my cousin never fully recovered from shooting himself in the left hand while playing with my uncle’s handgun).

[quote=CA renter]
Crime and murder have been with us for all of human history. Banning guns does not deter crime, and it certainly does not deter people from killing. Creating a peaceful, egalitarian society, with a sufficient social safety net is the best defense against violent criminals, IMHO; yet even in this type of society, I would prefer that people had the means to defend themselves against those who are, nonetheless, determined to be violent.[/quote]

I agree with all that. I just don’t believe that a gun in every hand helps in any way.

[all]

[quote=CA renter]
These “disturbed people” will always have tools at their disposal: knives, guns, rope, blunt objects, their hands or feet, etc. The most “disturbed” murderers (especially serial killers) tend to prefer “close-combat tools” rather than impersonal guns.

If you hear someone breaking into your house, would you rather have a bat or a gun in your hand? Guns are “the great equalizer,” and can afford women (and men who are not physical fighters) the only chance — however slight — of subduing their attackers.
[/quote]

One of my major points is that you likely won’t have access to your firearm if you ever need it.

I spent a little over a year in military (mandatory draft) and I’m familiar with the utilitarian value of guns. I also used to hunt large game with my father and my grandfather and I am familiar with the entertaining value of guns.
Obviously, I received some basic firearms training.

In a hypothetical situation where an armed person determined to murder me or members of my family is trying to enter my house I’d rather have a gun than a bat.

However, I believe that an alarm, a dog and a bat provide sufficient protection while reducing the danger of a nosy kid hurting itself (my cousin never fully recovered from shooting himself in the left hand while playing with my uncle’s handgun).

[quote=CA renter]
Crime and murder have been with us for all of human history. Banning guns does not deter crime, and it certainly does not deter people from killing. Creating a peaceful, egalitarian society, with a sufficient social safety net is the best defense against violent criminals, IMHO; yet even in this type of society, I would prefer that people had the means to defend themselves against those who are, nonetheless, determined to be violent.[/quote]

I agree with all that. I just don’t believe that a gun in every hand helps in any way.

[Author]

Posts