posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 03:54 PM
My view is about exactly opposite, that a majority of people (ideally everyone) should carry at least a pistol for personal safety or at least have
one in their home for home protection.
Some thing I've seen in recent times to justify increasing firearms to the population...
The state of Arizona allows you to wield assault rifles in public places. Obama had a public convention there, where people gathered wielding these
assault rifles. There was not a single incident between the various protesters and security at that event. Though you hear and see videos of
all kinds of police harassment from other conventions at other states (or at least I have, and the brutal and instigating behavior of the police
always pisses me off), there was no police harassment or confrontations at all between civilians and security at this event. Why? Because civilians
were standing around in broad daylight with assault rifles. A pig isn't going to mess with civilians when there is a bunch of them standing around
with equal firepower, if not more. And the people there were also mature enough and responsible enough to behave themselves and still make a very
clear point: being able to wield these things does not mean violence is going to ensue; instead, guns are a deterrent.
An area in the state of Georgia passed a law requiring every single home to have a functioning hand gun and ammunition for self-defense. In
that area, and there is a Georgian police officer somewhere around here who can verify this, breaking and enterings and other violent home disputes
dropped to virtually 0 after that law was passed. Why? Because every would-be bandit knew for a fact that any house he was about to break
into in that area, was packing.
Here in Virginia about 10 minutes from my house, there was an attempted breaking and entering into a man's house that I personally know. I can't
remember what the guy was armed with, but the homeowner heard him trying to bust in and was waiting for him inside with a shot gun. The homeowner
said he called out and told the guy if he came in, he was going to be shot. The guy burst in anyway and the homeowner shot him dead at point blank
range with his shot gun. No charges were ever filed as a result of this incident. Think of how many times homes are broken into where families are
totally defenseless, and what kinds of tragedies result from that. At least in cases like this, even though there is a fatality, it's quick and
clean and it's the aggressor that is killed in self-defense.
And again, probably the most valuable reason for arming as many people as possible, martial law and other government mass round-ups become virtually
impossible to execute. As long as populations can defend themselves even from the government, the government will be at least partially subservient
to the people, and not the other way around, the people being subservient to the government. And as long as the population is extremely armed,
foreign armies invading our country will be facing total hell in both urban and rural areas where they advance. Just think if every Jew the Nazis
came to take was armed with just an assault rifle. The Nazis might have barely even been able to take the war outside of their own country. And they
didn't try to take the Swiss, because the Swiss population is also extremely well-armed.
When you give up firearms, or when you allow their numbers to dwindle, that's when you have criminals and lone nuts come in and shoot up
scores of defenseless people. People who don't follow laws and murder people -- are NOT going to respect gun laws, EVER. So the issue is a
law-abiding citizen vs. a criminal who can ALWAYS have a gun. The more law-abiding citizens are unarmed, the more that are going to be shot down or
at the mercy of the criminal until law enforcement shows up.
I understand societies that are not used to having a lot of guns around can be nervous around them or nervous re-introducing a lot of them into their
population. I grew up in Virginia which still has conservative gun laws. Most people around here have some kind of firearm and it's not uncommon to
see them, even people carrying handguns around on their belts in public; I grew up around them and fired them with my grandpa when I was growing up.
The only time I would ever be afraid of a gun, is when I don't have one, and an aggressor does. That is a situation you never want to find
yourself in, and if you do, and you survive, you know you would at least want to be able to legally wield a weapon back in such a situation just to
defend yourself. Police responses aren't immediate, especially when no one else is aware of what's happening but you and the aggressor.
The bottom line is just because you give a gun to someone, it isn't going to turn them into a violent person, especially when they know many others
around them are also carrying firearms. The people that are going to be violent towards others, and break laws to injury or murder others, are not
going to respect gun laws and they're going to have a gun either way. So controlling the guns criminals have is virtually impossible. Guns are only
being taken away from law-abiding citizens, who will no longer be able to defend themselves.
[edit on 21-1-2010 by bsbray11]