Yeah but what if the attacker also has a gun? Get a bigger gun yourself?
A gun is often called the great equalizer, meaning that it nullifies differences in size, strength, and physical ability. For example, imagine if my 6'7" 290lbs friend turns into a bad guy and attacks his girlfriend, who is probably 5'3" and 110lbs. If they are both unarmed, he easily prevails. If she has a gun, she has the upper hand. Finally, if they are both armed then they are even and it's more or less a fair fight. Extreme example, I know, but the point is clear, I hope.
The "gun for self defense" scenario only works as long as only "the good guys" get guns.
I disagree. If the bad guys didn't have guns, knives, etc and I knew this with 100% certainty, then I wouldn't carry a gun. However, given that the previous scenario is unrealistic, I choose to carry a firearm so that I may have the
option to use that tool as a measure of last resort. Also, keep in mind that no gun will be drawn if the unfolding incident amounts to a simple fist-fight. No gun will be drawn over simple road rage or a drunk's dirty comment. Legally and ethically a gun only enters the situation if there is a threat of serious bodily harm or death - that's it. I think Europeans tend to imagine that the US is still a lot like what was depicted in old Western movies but trust me, we don't go around shooting each other randomly.
Yes there are probably situations where a gun would come in handy, but I can also think of situations where you would be worse off: what if "the attacker", who was previously unarmend, takes away your gun? He or She might be wore willing to use it than you are, and what might have been a simple, if unpleasant, mugging, suddenly turns into something much worse.
I struggle to imagine a situation where my gun would be taken from me by anyone that doesn't already have some fresh orifices that weren't there earlier. The only situation where I'd ever pull out a gun is if, as mentioned earlier, there is a serious and credible threat of serious bodily injury or death to me or to someone I know. That means that if I ever do draw, the situation will be so dire that shots will be fired almost immediately. When it comes to a mugging, I'd gladly hand over my wallet instead of shooting someone... unless they are armed, in which case it would depend on the situation and whether I believe that they will be satisfied with just my wallet.
To me, guns don't save people. Guns only lead to more guns, until both/all sides are armed to the teeth, and the moment something goes wrong, it *really* goes wrong. How many examples are there of "Mass Shooting stopped by random civilian that happened to carry a gun and shoot down the bad guy(s)"?
If a mass shooting is stopped before it becomes a mass shooting, how do you count it? Believe it or not, however, there
have been times where potential mass shootings were stopped by an armed civilian. Just a quick Google search gives me examples
one,
two, and
three.
Keep in mind also that the frequency of mass shootings is wildly exaggerated by varying methods of counting (including an Obama directive to lower the threshold) and by our sensationalist mainstream media channels. Whenever you hear the claim that there are hundreds of such events annually in the US, keep in mind that a gang shootout with four injuries and no fatalities is included in that count just as same as the Sandy Hook tragedy; suicides by the shooter also get counted among the victims, as do non-shooting injuries, such as cuts from broken glass or falls.
Here's a good article on that subject where the editor of Mother Jones, probably the most anti-gun organization out there, admits that "there have been four ?mass shootings? this year, including the one in San Bernardino, and at least 73 such attacks since 1982."
Here's another article on this subject.
Sometimes a few idiots unfortunately spoil something for everybody. Otherwise we could remove any and all security from airports and stop screening all cargo that enters the country, because, man, sometimes "it just happens, and most of the people aren't that bad". But the problem aren't the 99.999999% percent of sane people. The problem are the tiny fraction of nutjobs. And no longer being like "welcome to America, here is your gun" might be a start. But on the other hand, as we are going to see below, it might already be too late to change anything.
I think there are many things we can do to ensure that the violent crime rates continues to drop (which it has been doing for ~25 years, despite a massive spike in gun sales and a drastic relaxation of gun laws nationwide). I've mentioned several social, economic, and cultural fixes in the past so I won't bother repeating myself (unless you missed my previous posts, in which case I'll gladly write it out again or link to the older posts). However, as long as there exist the tiny fractions that may do me harm, I wish to be able to defend myself. I realize that chances are slim that I would ever need to use a gun but I choose to carry for because of the odds but because of the stakes - my life and the lives of my loved ones.
I think we all have to accept the possibility that the laws and guidelines we live by might be outdated and/or based on false premise. Laws are made by people. People can be wrong. Or maybe they were right at the time, but times changed.
Ah, this is a good segue way into a conversation about the original intent of the Second Amendment. The Founders recognized that all throughout human history our selfishness, jealousy, greed, and lust for power have caused rulers to be killed, governments to be toppled, and civilizations crumbled - all of these have left devastating amounts of dead citizenry in their wakes. What the Founding Fathers sought to create was a system that not only recognized that human beings had certain "inalienable" natural rights but, even more importantly, made sure that they would continue to have those rights; that no government, tyrant, ruler, emperor, terrorist, revolutionary, etc would ever be able to take away those rights. Many, if not most, of the violent tyrannies have come directly from government, largely due to its control of the police and the military. Recognizing this, the Founders specifically enumerated the people's right to keep and bear arms because that would be the only way that they would be able to fight off a government gone wild. You say times have changed; I say it's only temporary and that the Second Amendment is what will allow us to preserve our society and safeguard our freedoms.
However, I do see your other points. Collecting "all the guns" would be a colossal undertaking, that would be met with quite some resistance. The problem is also that there are probably just too damn many guns around to collect them all. And you'd probably "disarm" people in the wrong order.
I'm just curious, do you see a problem with 300 million guns distributed across the general population? If so, what's your idea of maybe improving the situation?
I don't. I think that any group that has been historically (including currently) persecuted should be armed: women, homosexuals, blacks, Jews, and so on. Vastly more people have died at the hand of Big Brother than for any other reason - just think of all the genocides that history bears, as well as all the wars, particularly civil wars. Basically what I want is for government bureaucrats to fear their constituents; to know that if they go too far they will pay the ultimate price. Obviously the first three
boxes of liberty come first and I'm not advocating that, for example, we take up arms over a state court's negative ruling against gay marriage, but if any government was to go so far as to attempt to round up all homosexuals, I'd be among the first to grab a rifle. Essentially, the cartridge box ensures that the other three remain effective in our democratic society.
Even though I know that I would not last very long in a fist fight (one punch to the face, to be exact) I never felt the need to carry a weapon of any kind. The town I grew up in was totally safe, and there was basically no crime. The next big city had a couple of "bad areas" (parks where junkies go at night to get high), but since everybody knew about them you just avoided them at night. The worst I can think of where drunk people beating the crap out of each other after a party, but that's about it. And the place I live now is like even more safe. Therefore I never felt the need to be able to defend myself against anything or anyone. And again, I'm not physically imposing or anything, I'm not "left alone by default".
I'm sure
Ut?ya was very safe for many decades also. Like I said, I carry for the stakes, not for the odds.
Have there been any studies regarding background checks for plates?
they don't, unless you consider 11.5 vs 9.2 huge... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
