Asking for trouble
Maybe I’m just a cynic, but the equation “more guns = less gun violence” doesn’t seem all that logical for some reason.
4 Comments »
833
Comment by C.J.
February 22, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
Here’s the logic for you: if you planned on going on a murderous rampage at your school would you think twice if you knew the person next to you in class may be packing heat and be trained to use it to drop you after your first or second shot? Private gun ownership is a deterrent. Ask any burglar which they try harder to avoid: the home with a security system or the home with an armed homeowner. Which is a scarier scenario, a single gunman with hundreds of unarmed targets in a mall or that same mall with potentially dozens of armed law-abiding citizens prepared to step up when attacked?
Ever wonder why the crime rate in Washington, DC, rose after the city banned handguns? Same story. Armed, law-abiding citizens are a more effective deterrent than even the largest uniformed police force.
Comment by d sica
February 22, 2008 @ 10:06 pm
Why does it not appear logical? Who do you prefer to carry a handgun: a criminal or a person who obeys the law?
Comment by J-Ho
February 25, 2008 @ 9:08 am
C.J.: Based on the two shootings we’ve seen at universities in the past year, it’s pretty clear that these guys have no regard for their own lives. So, no, I don’t think they would think twice about doing it. Ideally we’d get rid of all guns. But of course that’s not practical - at least not immediately. It’s like any other problem in the world. If you don’t solve the problem at its root, it’ll never get any better. Ultimately the problem isn’t the guns themselves. But even if arming ourselves to the teeth helps in the interim, down the line things will only get worse when we try to solve all of our problems with guns.
D: Neither.
A.: I find comfort in paranoia.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI