JTyson
Well-known member
I think your logic here is somewhat skewed by the assumption that both of the people who are against each other are on equal terms. One of them means to murder the other or rob them or rape them. The other just wants to be able to defend themselves and would never initiate lethal force with no reason whatsoever to do so. A properly trained individual knows full well not to shoot someone unless you have no options left.Not really, no. If a selling point of guns is that they stop other guns, the same logic says not having guns means you don’t need other guns.
Again, 250,000 times a year by the FBI's own numbers a criminal is stopped by a lawful gun owner. Dosent mean they shot them (but sometimes they have to) But just think what the numbers of innocent people killed, robbed or raped would be if you took out their ability to stop them.
Criminals care little or not at all what laws are passed. Everything they are doing is already breaking existing laws that have been in place for a hundred years, and they are never under the impression they are not breaking the law.
In the end, there are wolves, sheep, and sheep dogs. The sheep can certainly choose to go through life unarmed, and the sheep dogs don't mind at all that they choose to do that.. They certainly have that freedom. Freedom bought and paid for by people with guns....
They just mind when the sheep try to take away that same freedom from the sheep dogs.
If the actual objective is to save innocent lives (not criminals) the sheep dogs should be left alone. Starting a civil war by passing laws that would disarm millions of people who absolutely will not comply and will fight to stop it seems to be a path forward that has not been thought through properly. Remember the ones passing those laws are the ones breaking laws that were already in place from the beginning, and those same people took an oath not to do the very thing they are trying to do..