Afghans wouldn't have stood a chance if we weren't supplying them with high powered weapons and ammunition. They were pretty well quashed until we intervened and started financing their efforts.

Anyway, I don't really have much to add to the discussion, but I don't think having armed personnel around our children is the right answer either, and I think that knee-jerk reaction is potentially more dangerous than new gun control measures.

Do you really want a untrusted trigger happy man or men in a power position standing around with an AR or even concealed handgun around our children? And where would it stop? Soon we would have not only police, but also armed personnel at every public place. That's a far more slippery slope in my opinion that would lead to our rights being infringed upon. It would most certainly lead to more tragedies and more abuse of power by the very men charged with protecting our children.

As 5star pointed out these incidents are very rare and are actually in decline. They are always big national news of course, and Sandy Hook was particularly disturbing, but we have more children dying from not wearing their seatbelts.

I think the best we can do is be more prepared and have well thought out plans and drills and faster response times. We are never gonna fully stop things like this from happening completely, the best we can do is limit loss of life.

This is so simple:

You want a gun purchase one(50 100 who cares)
You don't want a gun well don't purchase one.

However, whatever your views are don't impose your view on someone else.

Americans enjoy the RIGHT by the constitution to keep and bear arms. So be it.

1st amendment:
The amendment prohibits the MAKING OF ANY LAWS respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

One thing to notice is that these amendments in the bill of rights is there not to limit the people's powers but to limit the government from limiting the peoples' power. In other words, the bill of rights was design to place limits on the government not to infringe upon the American Peoples rights not the other way around.

They are there to prevent THE government FROM TAKING YOUR RIGHTS AWAY LIKE IS HAPPENING NOW.
Can you imagine if suddenly you had a government that did want it to limit your freedom speech ??

The same applies to all the other rights.

[★★★★★]

They will snap up an individual's gun rights in a minute.

I should have been more clear. The right to purchase a gun will indeed likely be denied. However, existing weapons are very rarely confiscated (for something like a domestic dispute for example, which you mentioned). In many states CCW license renewals happen every 5 years, Florida has it at 7. In many countries you're required to renew any gun license every year. There is plenty that can be done.

If a drunk driver plows into a crowd and kills a bunch of people, do we then start enforcing/enacting newer, tougher "Driver Control" laws? HAH! Never happen! The drunk would probably not even lose his license, or if they did, they would get it back after a while. This has happened, over and over, time after time.
And if we DID do something like this:
Does this have any effect on the drunk driver? No.
Does it stop other drunk drivers? No.
Does it affect all those safe, sober drivers, or soon-to-be-new drivers? Yep.
I realize it's not the same thing, but the comparison is valid.

No, we start enforcing drunk driving laws. If there is a rise in alcohol related deaths on the road the driving license tests are made harder, the chances of you getting your drivers license revoked for minor infractions become higher. I'm not sure what world you're living in. In any state a DUI will get your license revoked for a minimum of 180 days and in some states comes with a minimum of two days jail time. Killing a person while under the influences will get you several years jail, anywhere.

An armed citizenry is close to being genocide-proof, and there is hard evidence at hand. In December 1979, the ex-Soviet Union invaded neighboring Afghanistan. Most of the 16 million Afghans are devout Muslims. They rejected the atheism of their Soviet-backed government.

Afghanistan has never been "governed" by whomever held power in the capitol, Kabul. Afghans look after themselves. Most adult males are armed. Afghanistan had no gun control before the Soviet invasion. Thus, armed Afghan civilians put the Afghan and Soviet armies on the defensive. In 1989, the war-weary Soviets withdrew their 115,000 troops. The Afghans offer a shining example of how armed civilians without heavy weapons can wreck armies. The Afghans undoubtedly saved themselves from genocide and/or enslavement.

I wasn't aware that Afghanistan serves as your model for a well-functioning country and society. I'm sure we have much to learn from one of the poorest, corrupt and altogether worthless countries in the world, the one that hasn't had a functioning government since the early 18th century. You continue to spew nonsense and display a complete lack of any knowledge of history if you think the purpose of the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan is as you call it "genocide and/or enslavement". Enforcing socialism was most certainly done brutally under Stalin, but the spread of communist ideals was a noble goal, and fundamentally the Soviet government wanted the people to live better under communism than before. It is actually practically undeniable that had Afghanistan become a Soviet republic the standard of living would have gone up (and in fact did in the areas that were controlled by the Soviet Union). Genocide was never a goal and enslavement certainly wasn't the case. For all of its faults, many inhabitants of ex-Soviet republics still believe that they were better off in the Soviet Union, some with good reason. I'm no proponent of socialism but the Soviet Union wasn't some cartoon-style villain who could be characterized in two lines as only wanting to enslave and kill everyone.

I also like how you avoided responding to my post after I destroyed your previous arguments. Ignoring it won't make it go away, so I'll just link back to it: viewtopic.php?p=1272948#1272948

[Bohica60]

Do you really want a untrusted trigger happy man or men in a power position standing around with an AR or even concealed handgun around our children?

THAT view-point is part of the problem. Just because a person HAS a CCW permit and carries, does NOT automatically make him/her a "trigger happy man" (or woman). It DOES mean that this person cares enough about his/her own safety and that of his/her own family and anyone else nearby, to be prepared (IF NEEDED) to do something more than just be a target if they happen to come into contact with an individual who wants to perpetrate a massacre like this one. Unfortunately, with the current rules in place, none of the adult victims here were allowed that option due to their location. If they had been, this whole thing might had had a much better outcome!

Soon we would have not only police, but also armed personnel at every public place.

(Sorry) Hah! Guess what? YOU ALREADY DO!
Unless you live in a location that totally bans CCW permits, you already do (except for areas we are not allowed to carry). You just don't KNOW about them because, as I stated before, WE DO NOT CARRY AROUND A SIGN OR OTHER VISIBLE MEANS OF IDENTIFYING OURSELVES AS PERMIT HOLDERS.
You cannot tell just by looking either. That doctor/lawyer type over there could be a permit holder, so could that scruffy-looking construction worker, or even that housewife talking to you in the checkout line.

If a drunk driver plows into a crowd and kills a bunch of people, do we then start enforcing/enacting newer, tougher "Driver Control" laws? HAH! Never happen! The drunk would probably not even lose his license, or if they did, they would get it back after a while. This has happened, over and over, time after time.
And if we DID do something like this:
Does this have any effect on the drunk driver? No.
Does it stop other drunk drivers? No.
Does it affect all those safe, sober drivers, or soon-to-be-new drivers? Yep.
I realize it's not the same thing, but the comparison is valid.

No, we start enforcing drunk driving laws.

EXACTLY! We start ENFORCING the laws already in place!

If there is a rise in alcohol related deaths on the road the driving license tests are made harder, the chances of you getting your drivers license revoked for minor infractions become higher.

Again, why punish the people who haven't done anything wrong?
The drunk driver doesn't give a D%$# how hard you make the tests because he is going to drive whether he has a license or not. (I know this one for fact. At one point in my life I was an EMT. We picked up enough of these A%$@#*&s at accident scenes without any wallet or license on them at all) Lack of a valid license will not stop them from driving.

I'm not sure what world you're living in. In any state a DUI will get your license revoked for a minimum of 180 days and in some states comes with a minimum of two days jail time. Killing a person while under the influences will get you several years jail, anywhere.

I live in the real world - where theory and reality are not always the same thing.
* - In theory, on paper, true.
* - In reality, in the real world, not necessarily the case. Again, I have seen this.
Case example: Police driving down a back road come across a truck sitting (engine running), parked, evenly straddling the white dotted line of the two-lane road with every light turned off. Upon stopping, turning on their roof emergency lights to warn other traffic, and getting out to investigate this, they find the owner of said running vehicle passed out on the seat with enough freshly emptied beer cans on the floorboards to have made any two or three normal individuals drunk. It was the "Town Drunk." So, there he is, drunk, passed out in his running vehicle, no lights, parked in the middle of the road. (Anyone could have come along and hit this vehicle before they could get stopped in time.) Do these policemen take him to jail? (They have him dead to rights on several counts - drunk in public, driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), hazard to public safety, etc.) Do they book him for DUI? (A given FACT in this case)

NO! THEY TAKE HIM AND HIS TRUCK HOME!
Unfortunately, I KNOW this one to be true, as I was home on a visit when they brought him there! (this was the clown my mother had remarried to after my father passed away) (I told them to take him to jail, but mom wouldn't hear of it.)
This sort of thing is way more common than many people with rose-colored glasses would like to believe. Don't believe me? Go ask the MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) WHY their organization exists.

[Beukies]

I also like how you avoided responding to my post after I destroyed your previous arguments. Ignoring it won't make it go away, so I'll just link back to it: viewtopic.php?p=1272948#1272948

OK, I give up on this "debate"!

There is none as blind as he who doesn't want see, or as deaf as he who doesn't want to hear!

I just finished reading everybody's comments, and it is truly diverse! I live in a country where even the police do not carry firearms. There is a special police section called "Armed Defenders".

This said, most of the population own at least 1 firearm per household, mostly semi-automatic rifles!!!!

And all this reminds me of something I read which REALLY makes sense. Do yourself a favour and read to the end: (The bold is my doing)

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act."

I agree with the above argument!

amen

God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal. It's as simple as that.

PS for those that don't know Samuel Colt was the owner for Colt's fire Arms.

I just finished reading everybody's comments, and it is truly diverse! I live in a country where even the police do not carry firearms. There is a special police section called "Armed Defenders".

This said, most of the population own at least 1 firearm per household, mostly semi-automatic rifles!!!!

And all this reminds me of something I read which REALLY makes sense. Do yourself a favour and read to the end: (The bold is my doing)

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act."

I agree with the above argument!

THAT view-point is part of the problem. Just because a person HAS a CCW permit and carries, does NOT automatically make him/her a "trigger happy man" (or woman). It DOES mean that this person cares enough about his/her own safety and that of his/her own family and anyone else nearby, to be prepared (IF NEEDED) to do something more than just be a target if they happen to come into contact with an individual who wants to perpetrate a massacre like this one. Unfortunately, with the current rules in place, none of the adult victims here were allowed that option due to their location. If they had been, this whole thing might had had a much better outcome!

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about some average Joe walking around who might happen to be at a school when a mass shooting takes place, I'm talking about armed government employees guarding our schools on a national scale.

Also the idea that someone is completely rational and beyond making bad decisions when panicked just because they have a CCW permit is ludicrous. See Florida and the most recent shooting in Texas as an example.

As for teachers being armed, the extreme majority of them are against it and the threat and potential for abuse and accidents is still there.

(Sorry) Hah! Guess what? YOU ALREADY DO!
Unless you live in a location that totally bans CCW permits, you already do (except for areas we are not allowed to carry). You just don't KNOW about them because, as I stated before, WE DO NOT CARRY AROUND A SIGN OR OTHER VISIBLE MEANS OF IDENTIFYING OURSELVES AS PERMIT HOLDERS.
You cannot tell just by looking either. That doctor/lawyer type over there could be a permit holder, so could that scruffy-looking construction worker, or even that housewife talking to you in the checkout line.

Again, you misunderstood me, and are completely missing the point, I'm talking about armed government personnel (which always works out just fine, see Africa and the middle east.) Furthermore if what you were saying had any basis in reality, we wouldn't even need police, because there would always be a CCW holder to save the day and fight crime with their legendary and infallible CCW powers.

Also my wife and I are both permit holders. It doesn't make us invincible supermen or special, as you seem to think.

I just finished reading everybody's comments, and it is truly diverse! I live in a country where even the police do not carry firearms. There is a special police section called "Armed Defenders".

This said, most of the population own at least 1 firearm per household, mostly semi-automatic rifles!!!!

And all this reminds me of something I read which REALLY makes sense. Do yourself a favour and read to the end: (The bold is my doing)

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act."

I agree with the above argument!

This is a good post and I agree with the sentiment of it, but the reality in the US is a little different. I've said it before and I'll say it again, America doesn't have a gun/firearm problem we have a problem with our culture of poverty and inequality.

[Bohica60]

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about some average Joe walking around who might happen to be at a school when a mass shooting takes place, I'm talking about armed government employees guarding our schools on a national scale.

Also the idea that someone is completely rational and beyond making bad decisions when panicked just because they have a CCW permit is ludicrous. See Florida and the most recent shooting in Texas as an example.

As for teachers being armed, the extreme majority of them are against it and the threat and potential for abuse and accidents is still there.

Ok, I did misunderstand the part about armed government employees (Not sure how they got into this?).

When did I ever state that a CCW permit holder was "beyond making bad decisions when panicked just because they have a CCW permit"? I did not. Of course it is ludicrous! They are human too. All I was saying was that it was POSSIBLE that they COULD help in a situation like this.

In light of the number of school shootings in recent years, maybe it's time they rethink the situation. There ARE ways of maintaining control of a firearm safely, even in a location such as a school, such as the handgun safes I mentioned earlier. The threat and potential for abuse and accidents is there in just about any job.

Again, you misunderstood me, and are completely missing the point, I'm talking about armed government personnel (which always works out just fine, see Africa and the middle east.) Furthermore if what you were saying had any basis in reality, we wouldn't even need police, because there would always be a CCW holder to save the day and fight crime with their legendary and infallible CCW powers.

Also my wife and I are both permit holders. It doesn't make us invincible supermen or special, as you seem to think.

Again, yes, I misunderstood about the "armed government personnel".

But you are also misunderstanding what I am saying. I never said that CCW holders were some kind of superhero or or somehow special because they have a permit. I simply said that they COULD make a difference in the outcome of that situation.

No, that is most definitely NOT how I think. But if you think so poorly of CCW holders (as your words and your sarcasm seem to suggest), I have to wonder why you even bothered to get your permits? It seems that you are saying that a CCW holder should just stand around and watch something like this happen without interfering in any way.

Actually, Babymic's post pretty much says what I was trying to get across a bit better than I did. No, I don't think CCW permit holders have some kind of superpowers or are somehow special. Yes, I do think they could have made a difference.

Ok, I did misunderstand the part about armed government employees (Not sure how they got into this?).

When did I ever state that a CCW permit holder was "beyond making bad decisions when panicked just because they have a CCW permit"? I did not. Of course it is ludicrous! They are human too. All I was saying was that it was POSSIBLE that they COULD help in a situation like this.

In light of the number of school shootings in recent years, maybe it's time they rethink the situation. There ARE ways of maintaining control of a firearm safely, even in a location such as a school, such as the handgun safes I mentioned earlier. The threat and potential for abuse and accidents is there in just about any job.

You didn't say it right out, but you definitely implied it.

Eh, we misunderstood each other then. My response about the armed guards was a general response to people saying we need them in our schools.

Again, yes, I misunderstood about the "armed government personnel".

But you are also misunderstanding what I am saying. I never said that CCW holders were some kind of superhero or or somehow special because they have a permit. I simply said that they COULD make a difference in the outcome of that situation.

No, that is most definitely NOT how I think. But if you think so poorly of CCW holders (as your words and your sarcasm seem to suggest), I have to wonder why you even bothered to get your permits? It seems that you are saying that a CCW holder should just stand around and watch something like this happen without interfering in any way.

Actually, Babymic's post pretty much says what I was trying to get across a bit better than I did. No, I don't think CCW permit holders have some kind of superpowers or are somehow special. Yes, I do think they could have made a difference.

It's possible they could have made a difference, but it's also likely that they would have just ended up getting shot as well. My only point is that they (we) are not infallible or the end all be all to solving these things or stopping them from happening.

I would absolutely try to do something to stop a shooter if I am ever in that situation. My missus probably would as well, even though I wouldn't necessarily want her to.

I also agree with Babymic, to a certain degree.

I apologize if my post seemed a little snarky, but yours did as well.

[atreidesx69]

I just finished reading everybody's comments, and it is truly diverse! I live in a country where even the police do not carry firearms. There is a special police section called "Armed Defenders".

This said, most of the population own at least 1 firearm per household, mostly semi-automatic rifles!!!!

And all this reminds me of something I read which REALLY makes sense. Do yourself a favour and read to the end: (The bold is my doing)

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act."

I agree with the above argument!

Very, very nice post. Couldn't have said better. It's Election Campaign period here in my country and there's a 6-months nationwide gun ban in place at the moment. All carry permits are suspended for the period, not even the police or military can carry a firearm if they're not in uniform or on duty. YET, there's been an upsurge of armed robberies, killings, and even one suspected rub-out in a checkpoint (13 fatalities) since the gun ban was enforced. Which is not surprising since it's only us legal and responsible firearm owners who respect the gun ban, never the criminals.

[Bohica60]

You didn't say it right out, but you definitely implied it.

Not intentionally. I don't feel that way and never meant to come across like I do feel that way.

It's possible they could have made a difference, but it's also likely that they would have just ended up getting shot as well. My only point is that they (we) are not infallible or the end all be all to solving these things or stopping them from happening.

No, but a little extra help could possibly have made a difference, is all I meant.

I apologize if my post seemed a little snarky, but yours did as well.

True, sorry, I just get a bit tired of the basic knee-jerk reaction/response to something like this always being "make it harder for the ones who DO follow the rules." The criminals don't follow the rules, so making up more, stricter rules is going to have zero affect on them.

Which is not surprising since it's only us legal and responsible firearm owners who respect the gun ban, never the criminals.

Pretty much what I have been trying to say all along.

[Promoted]

amen

God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal. It's as simple as that.

I rarely wade into OT threads, but I feel a need to do so after reading this reply. To say I approve, is an understatement. Whilst many are pontificating on America's gun laws, spare a thought for us women -- you know, "the weaker sex". And read this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/01/indian-bus-rape-delhi-rush-guns

You delegalise my firearms, or make it harder for women to protect themselves with weaponry in future, well, let's just say the brouhaha over Sandra Fluke's free condoms will seem like the Rio carnival in comparison.

PS: Love the Indian elders' reactions to increased rapes. Ban the mobiles! Lower the skirts! Yeah. That's it.

[jatboylover]

PS: Love the Indian elders' reactions to increased rapes. Ban the mobiles! Lower the skirts! Yeah. That's it.

oops
INDIA is a country of 125 million.atleast there are 25 million elders.you can find a million nuts but don't label them along with other 24 million.
Thank you.
P.S. i think you can also love indians for their support in rape protests and amendment of laws.