• Saudi Arabia Legalizes Guns in order to Curb Illegal Weapons Sales
    114 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;17964940] Honestly, such an attack would never occur in an American city,[/QUOTE] do you have any proof for that or are you just assuming it? I don't recall any attempted terrorist attacks thwarted by gun owning citizens also, India isn't the only country with stringent gun laws. What about Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Australia, Norway, etc? They don't have frequent terrorist attacks like that, and they have a much lower violent crime than the us, gun-related or otherwise. [editline]05:30PM[/editline] [QUOTE=nono345;17964966]don't give lame gun self-defense scenarios the truth is that guns don't kill people, people kill people[/QUOTE] the gun sorta helps people get away with more killing before they can be stopped though and the lack of them seems to make people safer, if Europe and Australia are any indications, so...
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;17965006]do you have any proof for that or are you just assuming it? I don't recall any attempted terrorist attacks thwarted by gun owning citizens also, India isn't the only country with stringent gun laws. What about Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Australia, Norway, etc? They don't have frequent terrorist attacks like that, and they have a much lower violent crime than the us, gun-related or otherwise.[/QUOTE] If you plan on killing someone, then smuggling a gun illegally would be the least of your worries.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;17965048]If you plan on killing someone, then smuggling a gun illegally would be the least of your worries.[/QUOTE] um I don't see how that refutes any of the points I made in my post, but ok you keep on truckin!
[QUOTE=The Epidemic;17963911]Crime-rates are extremely low in Saudi Arabia anyway. Guess why? :smugdog:[/QUOTE] They may be but they are at the cost of privacy and democracy.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;17965088]um I don't see how that refutes any of the points I made in my post, but ok you keep on truckin![/QUOTE] You were saying that countries that have guns banned have no crime rate.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;17965119]You were saying that countries that have guns banned have no crime rate.[/QUOTE] no I wasn't, and if you think that's what I was saying: you can't read I was saying that many of them have a much lower crime rate than the U.S.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;17965285]no I wasn't, and if you think that's what I was saying: you can't read I was saying that many of them have a much lower crime rate than the U.S.[/QUOTE] I knew what you meant. No need to freak out.
[quote]"Weapons may fall in the hands of young people who in fact need anger management courses. We might have a real social crisis because of widespread sale of weapons," a woman identifying herself as Hanan wrote. [/quote] Bitch best be trollin'.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;17965296]I knew what you meant. No need to freak out.[/QUOTE] lol what makes you think I was freaking out? looking for excuses to ignore my arguments hmmmm?
This is why the U.S.A. does it.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;17965339]lol what makes you think I was freaking out? looking for excuses to ignore my arguments hmmmm?[/QUOTE] Honestly, at least try and act mature.
[QUOTE=The Epidemic;17963911]Crime-rates are extremely low in Saudi Arabia anyway. Guess why? :smugdog:[/QUOTE] Because if you brag about your sex life, you get 1000 lashes of the whip! :eng101:
Yep.. That's a fucked up Country for you...
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;17965285]no I wasn't, and if you think that's what I was saying: you can't read I was saying that many of them have a much lower crime rate than the U.S.[/QUOTE] That isn't very comforting when you are being raped or murdered. Anyways, how do you know that the lower crime rates are caused by the anti gun laws? Correlation =/= causation. Maybe there's less poverty in those countries in Europe, maybe the population is just better behaved culturally. There could be a million different reasons.
Now the US just needs to realize the same thing needs to be done about the War on Drugs. [editline]06:16PM[/editline] [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;17965285]no I wasn't, and if you think that's what I was saying: you can't read I was saying that many of them have a much lower crime rate than the U.S.[/QUOTE] ughhhh.... There is a difference from Europe to the US. Regardless if we make guns illegal or not, Mexico will give our crime lords a steady supply. It's easier in the UK, because it's a island nation. As for Finland, all of its bordering countries have made guns illegal, therefore defeating illegal import.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;17964131]well statistically, I'm safer in countries like Sweden or India where guns are virtually impossible to get, so I'm fine with that[/QUOTE] There are less gays in India than in America and India has less crime therefore gays are the reason for most of the crime in America.
[QUOTE=cornndog;17967411]There are less gays in India than in America[/QUOTE] no not really
[QUOTE=R2Bl3nd;17962030]This is similar to people wanting drugs legalized here in the US. I think that if it can be done right, it will work relatively well.[/QUOTE] Yeah, except pot can't blow your brains out. [editline]04:47AM[/editline] [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;17968109]no not really[/QUOTE] This is true. It's not like Indians are bred to be less gay there's just the same amount of gays, there's just very few open about it. [editline]04:51AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Boba_Fett;17964940][img]http://www.topnews.in/files/Mumbai-terror-attack.jpg[/img] Terrorists just walked into India and shot up Mumbai. Honestly, such an attack would never occur in an American city, where a good portion of the civilians own guns and would be prompted to use them.[/QUOTE] lmao. Hmm.. I mean, is there any chance that attack was easy because, just maybe because [I]Pakistan is right next door to india?[/I] If iraq or Afghanistan were right next door to the US you'd have terrorist attacks all the time. Some "gun-range soldier" firing off some pot-shots with his revolver doesn't do much against lots of heavily armed gunmen, anyways.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;17964131]well statistically, I'm safer in countries like Sweden or India where guns are virtually impossible to get, so I'm fine with that[/QUOTE] Sweden, yes. India, no. India has a much higher crime rate than the US. They just don't have the infrastructure to keep track and report all of it. So naturally it would seem lower, but it isn't. Any poverty-stricken country, particularly one that has very dense populations will have a high crime rate. India isn't an exception. Also statistically, if you were to compare Europe as a whole with the US the crime rates are more or less the same. This is assuming you factored in the countries with serious problems, such as the Balkans and the rougher areas of all the other nations. Every country has "that one part of town" where crime is common as grass. "But wait! That isn't fair because of those bad parts! The US has a stupidly high crime rate everywhere in the country!" [b]WRONG![/b] That is more or less how the US works too. 80-90% of the country your odds of being the victim of a violent crime on any particular day are about as likely as you getting struck by lightning. Then there are areas where crime is very rampant. But even there most of the time you would have to be doing something stupid (like walking into a dark alley) to end up getting mugged. If anything, the crime rate in Europe is higher. Take for instance the UK. They have taken to doing EVERYTHING to prohibit people from defending themselves. First they banned all handguns, then they banned most rifles and shotguns, now knives. Using pepper spray to protect yourself can put you in jail for longer than the guy who tried to rob you. It is truly insane. What do they have to show for it? Their crime rate is actually notably higher than that of the US. This is in spite of the fact that they only count crimes where someone is [b]convicted[/b] rather than counting crimes that are [b]reported[/b] even if no one is caught (which is how the FBI does it in the US). And you have so called "informed" individuals comparing the crime rates in the USA with that of 3rd world countries. It really isn't anywhere near that bad here. It isn't Sweden or Switzerland, but it isn't like freaking Somalia either. (And I have had a person claiming that being in Somalia is safer than being in the USA) [QUOTE=hypno-toad;17969673] lmao. Hmm.. I mean, is there any chance that attack was easy because, just maybe because [I]Pakistan is right next door to india?[/I] If iraq or Afghanistan were right next door to the US you'd have terrorist attacks all the time. Some "gun-range soldier" firing off some pot-shots with his revolver doesn't do much against lots of heavily armed gunmen, anyways.[/QUOTE] That one guy with a revolver probably wouldn't be able to do much. But if he takes one terrorist out of the fight he saves dozens of lives. That and if there was an attack on that scale in the US he wouldn't be alone. There would probably be a handful of people with rifles. They could have made an even bigger difference. Stopped the attack? Probably not, but they would have put up a fight, which would have minimized the damage the terrorists would be able to do. Another factor is that law enforcement in the US is a lot more organized and competent. That kind of situation would be dealt with in a matter of hours, rather than days.
[QUOTE=Van-man;17963479]It wasn't funny, therefor it wasn't a joke.[/QUOTE] I disagree, jokes can be unfunny :colbert:
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;17964351]don't matter what they're committed with, the fact of the matter is that the countries I listed are much safer in terms of all violent crime[/QUOTE] Yeah that's totally because guns are banned there, no other reason.
I'm now picturing the perfect world where all weapons are replaced by pillows. Imagine going to war.
[QUOTE=Clavus;17979698]I'm now picturing the perfect world where all weapons are replaced by pillows. Imagine going to war.[/QUOTE] Kinky
Obviously they were unable to stop people from getting guns so they stopped wasting money fighting it and instead gave people licenses so that they knew who has guns and where they came from. At least that's how I see it.
[QUOTE=ryandaniels;17979970]Obviously they were unable to stop people from getting guns so they stopped wasting money fighting it and instead gave people licenses so that they knew who has guns and where they came from. At least that's how I see it.[/QUOTE] Yea, if you can't stop it then at least try and regulate and track it.
[QUOTE=Bean-O;17970285]\ That one guy with a revolver probably wouldn't be able to do much. But if he takes one terrorist out of the fight he saves dozens of lives. That and if there was an attack on that scale in the US he wouldn't be alone. There would probably be a handful of people with rifles. They could have made an even bigger difference. Stopped the attack? Probably not, but they would have put up a fight, which would have minimized the damage the terrorists would be able to do. Another factor is that law enforcement in the US is a lot more organized and competent. That kind of situation would be dealt with in a matter of hours, rather than days.[/QUOTE] That's pretty specious reasoning you have there, buddy. Has it occurred to you that many people that own firearms don't carry them to stop a very unlikely terrorist attack? Most of the time firearms don't lead to some epic heroics, they most often turn handleable able grievances/fights into homicide situations because the second a firearm comes out of somebodies pocket, the situation escalates [B]really[/B] fast. You could argue that the situation in mumbai could have been stopped if lots of civilians had been carrying guns, but the truth is it probably would have made the situation much worse. after the first "john wayne" opens fire on a group of armed gunmen, the gunmen suddenly become neurotic, and are much more likely to become much more aggressive and murder many more people. With only 150 people dead in the mumbai shootings in the three days in which it happened, it shows that the gunmen probably wern't trying their darnedest to kill as many people as they could, but that could have changed once they think they are in danger from civilians. Same thing applies for more plausible situations, such as bank/store robberies and hostage situations. In the end, one individual could potentially save lives through the use of a gun, but your nation having a large amount of guns floating around makes murder much more accessible to your average simpleton, and your murder rates shoot up because of it. Also, as a mentioned, once a gun is thrown into a volatile situation, it can makes things turn ugly really fast. [quote][B]Another factor is that law enforcement in the US is a lot more organized and competent. That kind of situation would be dealt with in a matter of hours, rather than days.[/B][/quote] Why does everybody need a gun when the police are supposed to handle these situations...?
CIVIL WAR! I mean everyone allowed to have guns, bad idea. Plus murder and violence rates will skyrocket.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;17982668]Has it occurred to you that many people that own firearms don't carry them to stop a very unlikely terrorist attack?[/QUOTE] You'd be surprised. After 9/11 a lot of people in the US did just that. One example which is perhaps more relevant is Israel, where lots of people own guns for exactly that reason and they do use them in self-defense during terrorist attacks very frequently. [QUOTE=hypno-toad;17982668]Most of the time firearms don't lead to some epic heroics, they most often turn handleable able grievances/fights into homicide situations because the second a firearm comes out of somebodies pocket, the situation escalates [B]really[/B] fast.[/QUOTE] There's no denying that those incidents do happen, but for every incident like that there are many more cases of those "brave heroics" you're talking about. It happens quite frequently. The exact numbers are illusive but in the US there are millions of cases every year where that happens. (the most pessimistic estimates 300,000 and the most optimistic being in the tens of millions. The most common estimate is 2-5 million) Most of the time the person defending themselves doesn't even need to shoot the weapon. So if you want to talk "most of the time", that would sooner favor my side of the argument. [QUOTE=hypno-toad;17982668]You could argue that the situation in mumbai could have been stopped if lots of civilians had been carrying guns, but the truth is it probably would have made the situation much worse. after the first "john wayne" opens fire on a group of armed gunmen, the gunmen suddenly become neurotic, and are much more likely to become much more aggressive and murder many more people.[/QUOTE] They were already going crazy. [QUOTE=hypno-toad;17982668]With only 150 people dead in the mumbai shootings in the three days in which it happened, it shows that the gunmen probably wern't trying their darnedest to kill as many people as they could, but that could have changed once they think they are in danger from civilian.[/QUOTE] We many never know for sure, but I'm pretty sure they were trying their hardest. It was a suicide mission. You don't do that unless you're pretty darn pissed off. I think that if they met armed resistance it would at very least pin them down. If some would have been killed by said resistance, that would more than make up for the remaining terrorists becoming more aggressive because there would have been less of them going nuts. And like I said, I don't see how they could have been "more" brutal. They already had a death-wish. [QUOTE=hypno-toad;17982668]Same thing applies for more plausible situations, such as bank/store robberies and hostage situations.[/QUOTE] Yes and no. Not all hostage situation simmer down. It is relatively common that the hostage taker does kill someone. In a situation like that you may as well fight back. Also the hostage-taker in question would expect his victims to be unarmed, throwing a wrench into that part of the plan could bring the situation to an end. Perhaps in a way where the attacker could be killed, but that beats an innocent person being shot. As far as I'm concerned if you are a violent criminal who would be willing to take another person's life your life is worth less to society than that of your victim. One of the most common cases of self-defense come from people working at retail stores. Someone comes in armed, the worker pulls a gun, the attacker who doesn't expect this flees. Happens all the time. Does it devolve into a shootout? Sometimes. Would those scenarios have turned violent if the person had not brandished a weapon? We may never know. But you have to understand that scenario works both ways as far as this argument goes. And much of the information pertaining to it is a big unknown. Therefore this argument doesn't really work for either of us. [QUOTE=hypno-toad;17982668]Why does everybody need a gun when the police are supposed to handle these situations...?[/QUOTE] They can only do so much so fast, no matter how competent they are. Either way, being forced to rely on their assistance doesn't sound as good as being able to defend yourself as well as having them on your side. [QUOTE=hypno-toad;17982668]In the end, one individual could potentially save lives through the use of a gun, but your nation having a large amount of guns floating around makes murder much more accessible to your average simpleton, and your murder rates shoot up because of it. [/QUOTE] Yes, except for the fact that guns aren't good or bad. They can't make decisions. They can't decide to do something bad. The fact that they are available does cause some nasty situations, beyond a doubt, but the same guns can and do prevent violence as well. The bigger picture is such: -Any given government can only control legitimate gun markets. The black market can be affected by government actions, but they can only do so much without being a total police state. -They can therefore only affect the civilian side of the balance of power. At least they affect it far more than they affect the criminals. -Banning guns would reduce the number of weapons available to criminals, but not eliminate them altogether the way it would eliminate them for law-abiding civilians. -In doing that they would have shifted the balance of power in favor of the criminals and by virtue of law enforcement only being able to do so much it would leave many innocent people at the mercy of these individuals. The best response times are a matter of minutes, which is more than enough time. You are ultimately your own first and last line of defense in any scenario. Armed or otherwise. -There is also an unforeseen consequence where the legal ownership of firearms and the fear of these weapons by the criminals prevents a substantial amount of crime. How much? We may never know for sure since no one reports a crime that doesn't happen. But banning guns makes a criminal's job easier, since he/she doesn't care. Therefore more criminals would commit more crimes more often. Given this outlook I have concluded that banning firearms would increase the crime rate, rather than lowering it. Could I be wrong? Yes, but I find that possibility somewhat distant. [QUOTE=hypno-toad;17982668]Also, as a mentioned, once a gun is thrown into a volatile situation, it can makes things turn ugly really fast.[/QUOTE] Also, as mentioned, that part of the argument could work for either side of the debate, but is ultimately useless because there is no way to prove one side or the other of it.
Quick format because I don't feel like spending 5 hours tearing apart your post: - Israel lives next to a hostile nation, you Americans don't. The only exterior terrorist attack that has happened in the US was 8 years ago, and that had nothing to do with gunmen. - There are still less cases of those sorts of heroics than there are fuckups, guns bring escalation, no exceptions. - 150 kills in 3 days firing into large crowds of people? Sounds to me like they wern't trying as hard as they could have been. Anybody in the right mind, regardless of their cause is probably going to have trouble murdering tonnes of people. I'm guessing they wern't aiming as well as they could have. even today, at least 5-10% of soldiers even under strict training aim to miss because they don't want to kill people. - Once again, if they were trying their hardest, there would have been many more deaths. - My point was that the authorities should act before "john wayne" does. If a civilian opens fire one can't be sure of the outcome. it's safer to let the [I]trained[/I] authorities handle it. In the worst case scenario you'd probably have more luck attempting to disarm one of the assailants because it provides a proper diversion that is less likely to endanger the other hostages. - Well, then the only other option is that American condition is really fucked up. I talked to an American friend that lives in a city 1/4 the size of mine, and it has roughly 4 times the murder rate my city has. The most obvious culprit is gun control. Even if your state has heavy gun control, people will just go to a few states over and buy ones from other people. Gun control would have to be nationwide to be effective. At any rate methinks that people get buthurt over gun control because they just like to have guns as toys, you wouldn't need a gun for defense from anything. As with everything that ever happens in the US, people claim that they are losing freedoms or that it's socialism/fascism/communism/baaaw, even though the average citizen in the united states already has less freedoms than anybody else in the north western hemisphere. It's a poor argument trying to justify carrying a gun on the street, assuming there's going to be a terrorist attack is nothing short of retarded paranoia. If you're afraid of being mugged, carry a knife; a knife at point blank is just as lethal as a gun. A baseball bat works just fine against burglars, unless they have a gun, in which case you're probably fucked anyways even if you did have a gun. There's really no need to wield a gun, the only reasons to are there because guns are legalized. You're fighting one problem with the [I]same problem[/I].
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;17985506]- Israel lives next to a hostile nation, you Americans don't. The only exterior terrorist attack that has happened in the US was 8 years ago, and that had nothing to do with gunmen.[/QUOTE] Doesn't really counter my point. I simply wasn't aware that we HAD to stick to examples within the US. Nevertheless Israel is a case where guns are frequently used by civilians for just the reason you described with significantly more benefit than harm. If they can use guns to protect themselves from hardened, suicidal terrorists, what is to say an American can't effectively use a gun to protect himself against a far less determined common thug? 90% of the time a simple show of force is enough. If you brandish a firearm, they will usually scatter because they are expecting you to be defenseless. [QUOTE=hypno-toad;17985506]- There are still less cases of those sorts of heroics than there are fuckups, guns bring escalation, no exceptions.[/QUOTE] There are millions of those cases and far less than a million fuckups. Moreover the fuckups are always reported. Very little exception there. The heroics aren't because a crime is prevented, so why go to the police about it? I still think people should report self-defense cases more often but they don't. Often times as far as record keeping goes self-defense cases are regarded as unimportant and frequently omitted from records which affects the statistics and is the reason why the exact number of those cases is shady but nevertheless likely to be very high. One could say, "How do you justify saving multiple lives with a gun at the expense of another?" I would say "How would you justify screwing those other people over for that one life which would most likely be taken either way?" That's just an argument I hear a lot. [QUOTE=hypno-toad;17985506]- 150 kills in 3 days firing into large crowds of people? Sounds to me like they wern't trying as hard as they could have been. Anybody in the right mind, regardless of their cause is probably going to have trouble murdering tonnes of people. I'm guessing they wern't aiming as well as they could have. even today, at least 5-10% of soldiers even under strict training aim to miss because they don't want to kill people.[/QUOTE] What? No way, these guys had a freaking deathwish. You don't shoot to miss if you have a freaking deathwish. In the army, maybe but even then when they shoot they usually shoot to kill. I would sooner attribute that low fatality rate to sheer incompetence. [QUOTE=hypno-toad;17985506]- Once again, if they were trying their hardest, there would have been many more deaths.[/QUOTE] I highly doubt that. Also it's nice that you're allowed to use examples of foreign countries but when I do it effectively (Israel) then it isn't relevant to the discussion. [QUOTE=hypno-toad;17985506]- My point was that the authorities should act before "john wayne" does. If a civilian opens fire one can't be sure of the outcome. it's safer to let the [I]trained[/I] authorities handle it. [/QUOTE] Never mind that many gun owners have a prior military history or that many get lots of practice shooting their guns. In fact most cops only practice once a month or so, just the bare minimum as required by their department. (Which I think is a shame). Is a random civilian more qualified to deal with a dangerous situation? No, but he's there when it happens which saves ever-precious time. Like I said, first and last line of defense. That and people who have permits to carry guns (yes, you need to apply for a permit, this isn't Deadwood) do get extensive training on the subject before they are allowed to carry. Incidents where a CCW user abuses his privileges can be counted on one hand in most states. Even the ones that have issued thousands of permits over the course of several years now. [QUOTE=hypno-toad;17985506]In the worst case scenario you'd probably have more luck attempting to disarm one of the assailants because it provides a proper diversion that is less likely to endanger the other hostages.[/QUOTE] Except if you fail everyone is screwed. This is where the whole "Piss him off and make him shoot everyone" thing comes into play. It isn't like any of his victims will shoot back or anything. And if you had a gun you could just blow his brains out when his back is turned. Morally questionable and messy, but perfectly legitimate as far as the law is concerned. [QUOTE=hypno-toad;17985506] - Well, then the only other option is that American condition is really fucked up. I talked to an American friend that lives in a city 1/4 the size of mine, and it has roughly 4 times the murder rate my city has. The most obvious culprit is gun control. Even if your state has heavy gun control, people will just go to a few states over and buy ones from other people. Gun control would have to be nationwide to be effective. [/QUOTE] Yeah, I'm not claiming America is better than Sweden or anything. Our crime rate is still pretty freaking high in comparison to incredibly clean places like that. But not as high as people are running around claiming it to be. If you look at our crime rates per capita and compare them to other nations that are at least halfway honest about it, we don't score that bad. And yes, some other countries blatantly lie about their crime rates to make themselves look better. It is very common. And banning guns will only affect one side of that delicate balance of power between criminal and victim. The criminals still get most of their guns by smuggling them from abroad and there is only so much we can do about that. If we banned guns they would simply get more of their supplies that way. It would inconvenience them some more, but not stop them. Heck, they could just switch to knives like in England, where the crime rate unexpectedly shot up after they banned everything. Oh wait, I'm not allowed to use that as an example am I? [QUOTE=hypno-toad;17985506]At any rate methinks that people get buthurt over gun control because they just like to have guns as toys, you wouldn't need a gun for defense from anything. As with everything that ever happens in the US, people claim that they are losing freedoms or that it's socialism/fascism/communism/baaaw, even though the average citizen in the united states already has less freedoms than anybody else in the north western hemisphere. [/QUOTE] I appreciate how you snuck an ad-hominem attack in there. Very subtle. They're not complaining because their toys are being taken away. They are complaining because in the US, guns are provided so that we can overthrow our own government. If that same government decides to take everything away, naturally that looks like a bad sign. Yeah, our situations with freedoms is kind of lousy (Thanks Bush administration, I hope you burn in hell) but the way some people see it, when they decide to take our guns it is a turn in the wrong direction. Basically what you just said is "You don't have many rights anyway, why not give another one up?". Which isn't the worst logic ever until you consider that the right in question is supposed to be a last-chance defense against just such incursions. [QUOTE=hypno-toad;17985506]It's a poor argument trying to justify carrying a gun on the street, assuming there's going to be a terrorist attack is nothing short of retarded paranoia.[/QUOTE] No one who carries "assumes" that they will be attacked. That ideology as far as I'm aware simply doesn't exist among CCW holders. It is just there in case you are attacked. Much like how some people have fire extinguishers in their cars and homes. They don't assume their car or house will catch on fire but they are ready in case it does. [QUOTE=hypno-toad;17985506]If you're afraid of being mugged, carry a knife; a knife at point blank is just as lethal as a gun.[/QUOTE] No it isn't. [QUOTE=hypno-toad;17985506]A baseball bat works just fine against burglars, unless they have a gun, in which case you're probably fucked anyways even if you did have a gun. [/QUOTE] If you had a gun and they didn't, they would be running because you would have the complete advantage. If they did have a gun, there is a good possibility of scaring them off because they're not expecting you to have one. And if it turns into a shootout, there's nothing to say they weren't planning on disposing of you from the get-go. Yes, cases where someone breaks into a house, finds people unarmed and kills them anyway aren't that rare. Not very common, but they happen. [QUOTE=hypno-toad;17985506]There's really no need to wield a gun, the only reasons to are there because guns are legalized. You're fighting one problem with the [I]same problem[/I].[/QUOTE] Fighting fire with fire doesn't seem to make sense until you consider how well it works here. The bottom line is that it evens the odds between victim and criminal. Does it cost lives? Yes, beyond a doubt, but it saves more still.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.