4 ms·
Ironically, you're absolutely right. Cops, bodyguards and civilians defending themselves generally only need guns because their adversaries have guns. Just take
by gmac 11y ago
Ironically, you're absolutely right. Cops, bodyguards and civilians defending themselves generally only need guns because their adversaries have guns. Just take them out of everyone's hands. I know this works, if you can make it happen, because I've seen the gun death statistics for countries with effective gun control.
Hunters are a different case, but their weapons are rather different too. To be honest I wouldn't that much care about depriving them of a pastime if it meant turning US gun death figures into European ones. But that's probably unnecessary.
- sageikosa 11y agoWe'll ask nicely. Please don't shoot.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago>Cops, bodyguards and civilians defending themselves generally only need guns because their adversaries have guns. Not at all the case. Guns allow for the physically weak to still have a chance to defend themselves. On NPR I remember calling for the police to help as her ex was breaking into the home. They didn't have anyone anywhere near by and the woman had no weapons on her. The boyfriend ended up breaking in and attacking her quite badly. He didn't need a weapon and a weapon wouldn't have made what he did any worse, but it might have given her the chance for the victim to defend herself or scare him off.
- Lawtonfogle 11y agoTo clarify, I meant on NPR I remember hearing a story about a woman calling for the police. Not sure how I forgot to add in about 4 words there.