One, turning it into a gun-fight just isn’t worth it. The guys who mugged me certainly didn’t have guns. My laptop was insured, and my work was backed up. I moved on. I don’t think slaughtering some poor black kid and his friends would have made the situation easier. And what if the gun had turned on me in the struggle?

Two, if everyone typically walked down the street armed with a gun, you can bet those guys who mugged me would have had one. It’s like an arms race. As far as I’m concerned, the fewer guns there are in the world, the better. Which brings me to…

Three, it just isn’t practical for me to defend myself from all possible harm. If someone wants to assassinate me, for example, they could snipe me from a window or poison my Starbucks, no problem. I live in the heart of a city, and if I feel safe walking down the street by myself, it’s because the neighborhood is safe to a certain extent, not because I’m carrying superior firepower. If I’m not worried about being overpowered by people shouting slogans at me, it’s because my neighborhood rarely has people standing around with megaphones, not because I always carry a stick of dynamite in my back pocket that makes a much louder noise.

Anyway, just some thoughts that occur to me.

Please look at this page illustrating “how to write strong arguments.” What you did is called contradiction because you state an opposing case and provide no supporting evidence. It may be in the middle of the pyramid, but that’s only because so many types of arguments are poor.

Here is the biggest problem with your understanding of America. When I hear “I, as an American, want the right to…”, it sends shivers down MY spine! American’s do not want rights, they are not “given” rights, rather the Constitution merely reaffirms the preexisting rights granted to every human. So I do not “Want the right” to anything, I already have 10 guaranteed rights to work with ;-)

Further more to your assertion that an armed populace is full of scaredy cats/is just afraid/does not affect crime/etc., I would direct you to John Lott’s book “More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws” or “Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-carry Concealed Handguns”. I think you will find the statistics shocking. In places where gun control is strictest, crime is highest. (See Washington, D.C., Atlanta, GA, and Chicago, IL.)

Also, can your theory explain why Luby’s Dienr, Virginia Tech, N.I.U., Columbine, Trolley Square, etc. all occured in places were lawful possession of a firearm for self defense? How is it that so many massacres occur in “Gun Free Zones”?

Further, you are correct in your assertion that GUN Violence is lower per capita in Canada, Austrailia, and Britain. Oddly enough, Stabbings, Muggings, and other Violent crime is far greater than that of the US. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions to that.

Glock 23c.

Let’s just make a law that says criminals are not allowed to carry or own guns. That should solve all our problems, since criminals are the ones using guns to commit crimes.

:-)

Oh, wait…

Great post Daniel, I agree with Jon: you and your friend rock!

Problem is, if your friend had put two into this guy like he deserved, he would’ve been arrested, possibly charged and then even sued in civil court by the offender’s family. What kind of screwed up world is that when the victim gets penalized? I say one less thug the better.

Whether or not I’m using a tragedy to advocate for more gun rights, I am utilizing my observations and reasoning to a logical outcome. Less gun rights, and more gun restrictions, would be a move in the opposite direction.

Criminals do not have the motivation to obtain weopons legally, so they won’t, and to expect restrictions on gun ownership to delay them is unreasonable. Guns are available on the street.

When the illegal element is armed, and your grandmother runs in their path, wouldn’t you hope someone decent would be nearby, enabled to give her a chance of something better than fear or death?

Nowadays, it isn’t fearmongering as much as reality.

-=T=-