Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
People who "require" guns are often small in stature, they have no fighting skills or confidence. They readily admit they are weaker than many others
they may encounter for whatever reason, which is why they carry the gun - to give them an edge....many times it is simply weaker in firepower.
This is true enough. My wife for instance, suffers a number of Diabetic complications and would have all the chance in a physical confrontation of a
child vs. a pro wrestler and that situation holds about true if she were facing a child herself. It's bad from her perspective so count her among
those that carries a gun daily to be an equalizer. Whats wrong with that? If she encounters someone looking to rape her......that is the ONLY thing
she has to prevent that from being done to her. She couldn't mount any physical resistance worth the term to use.
Why not teach people different ways to solve differences that shooting each other or threatening with a gun? Why not change the culture? Guns
are for lonely open country and the wilderness.
How do you figure guns are for rural areas? In terms of defense? The cities are where rape, murder and various levels of violent crime happen every
day, non stop across our nation. I'd say urban areas need legal and responsible weapons ownership as much as any rural resident needs it for wildlife
or hunting.
In addition, many big shooting leagues for competitive shooting (That's a growing national sport with broad participation) are based in cities and not
rural areas.
They are for cops and hunting and people who want to target practice for fun. When guns are used to threaten others somebody usually gets
killed. These shooters always kill themselves because they can't face what they have done.
Unfortunately you're right. They do end up killing themselves...after they've literally run out of victims to murder or literally gotten tired or
despondant about what they've done. What's unfortunate is that a legal gun owner wasn't around to kill them much sooner and remove that last option
for their control....BEFORE so many have to die by the shooter's hand.
I can't think of a truer definition of coward. Their own gun gives them an easy out without having to face the consequences of their crime. It
is infuriating and doesn't have to be that way.
I'll agree with the cowardice of mass shooters. Absolutely. Columbine High School had 99 improvised explosive devices located either armed and planted
at the school in advance, in their cars or at their homes in various states of assembly. Guns weren't even the intended tool for most damage at that
one and I don't think they even intended to do as much as they personally did. Cowardice.... Indeed... That is a unifying trait among criminals and
personally, why being unarmed is a foolish thing.
Criminals respect and avoid strength.....they seek out and prey on weakness.
edit on 16-12-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason
given)
