5 ms·

> NOBODY should be allowed to defend themselves with a gun Why?

15155 8y ago
People who take this mentality would rather you die/get raped/be a victim, it's really quite that simple. I am not tough or delusional enough to think that I (trained, in peak physical condition) could take on multiple armed or unarmed assailants who wish to do me grievous bodily harm. How could a 90 year old woman defend against one or more individuals? How could a single mother protect herself and her children? Firearms are the only means that give the individual a fighting chance. The police are going to show up after crimes have been committed: they cannot help you if they're not there, nor are they legally mandated to help you even if they're there and the crime is in progress.
- lutorm 8y ago
  This is painting the devil on the wall. First, out of all risks you face in life, "multiple armed or unarmed assailants who wish to do me grievous bodily harm" is not really the one that you should be worrying about. Second, how would a handgun help you take on assailants armed with automatic weapons? So then you need an automatic weapon? But how will an automatic weapon help you take on assailants armed with hand grenades and RPGs? So then you need hand grenades and RPGS? Tanks? Fighter jets? Nuclear weapons? Your reasoning can be taken arbitrarily far. Do you take the same approach to all other, very unlikely, risks that you face in life?
  - 15155 8y ago
    > is not really the one that you should be worrying about. Not all of us are as privileged as you to live in a safe area. > Second, how would a handgun help you take on assailants armed with automatic weapons? So then you need an automatic weapon A handgun is good enough of an equalizer in the situations I am likely to face. For the relatively low cost, effort required, there's no substitute. > Do you take the same approach to all other, very unlikely, risks that you face in life? - How is it your place to determine the likelihood that I get into a violent altercation? - Why does my area now require some standard of "likelihood of violence" before I am allowed to protect myself? - How is it your place to make these risk-based judgment calls for me and others? The fact is: carrying a firearm takes ten seconds out of my day (to put on). Some might describe that as "living in fear," but I'll trade the ten seconds for the capabilities having said firearm confers. It's really not a big deal, despite what some might think. I'll also take the time to test and install fire extinguishers in my home.. or is my home catching fire a "very unlikely risk" I shouldn't be prepared for, too, in one's expert opinion?
- pwinnski 8y ago
  Many, many, many countries have far stricter controls on either weapons or ammunition, and those countries aren't filled with roving armed gangs attacking 90-year-old women and single mothers. This is fear-mongering, based on wildly unrealistic assertions about the world.
  - 15155 8y ago
    > roving armed gangs attacking 90-year-old women and single mothers. So basically: this woman isn't allowed to defend herself from burglars, is that what you are saying? > This is fear-mongering, based on wildly unrealistic assertions about the world. It's great that you are privileged enough to live in an area without any violent crime! That's truly great! I don't live in a safe area, so I don't believe that you or others have any right nor place to make that decision for me. > fear-mongering, Home burglaries are the number one type of crime in my area. Home invasions happen, whether you want to call them "fear-mongering" or not. Should I just not be able to defend my home, my person, my family? Should I trust the good will of the felon who broke in NOT to harm me further or take my things?

People who take this mentality would rather you die/get raped/be a victim, it's really quite that simple. I am not tough or delusional enough to think that I (trained, in peak physical condition) could take on multiple armed or unarmed assailants who wish to do me grievous bodily harm. How could a 90 year old woman defend against one or more individuals? How could a single mother protect herself and her children? Firearms are the only means that give the individual a fighting chance. The police are going to show up after crimes have been committed: they cannot help you if they're not there, nor are they legally mandated to help you even if they're there and the crime is in progress.

lutorm 8y ago
This is painting the devil on the wall. First, out of all risks you face in life, "multiple armed or unarmed assailants who wish to do me grievous bodily harm" is not really the one that you should be worrying about. Second, how would a handgun help you take on assailants armed with automatic weapons? So then you need an automatic weapon? But how will an automatic weapon help you take on assailants armed with hand grenades and RPGs? So then you need hand grenades and RPGS? Tanks? Fighter jets? Nuclear weapons? Your reasoning can be taken arbitrarily far. Do you take the same approach to all other, very unlikely, risks that you face in life?
- 15155 8y ago
  > is not really the one that you should be worrying about. Not all of us are as privileged as you to live in a safe area. > Second, how would a handgun help you take on assailants armed with automatic weapons? So then you need an automatic weapon A handgun is good enough of an equalizer in the situations I am likely to face. For the relatively low cost, effort required, there's no substitute. > Do you take the same approach to all other, very unlikely, risks that you face in life? - How is it your place to determine the likelihood that I get into a violent altercation? - Why does my area now require some standard of "likelihood of violence" before I am allowed to protect myself? - How is it your place to make these risk-based judgment calls for me and others? The fact is: carrying a firearm takes ten seconds out of my day (to put on). Some might describe that as "living in fear," but I'll trade the ten seconds for the capabilities having said firearm confers. It's really not a big deal, despite what some might think. I'll also take the time to test and install fire extinguishers in my home.. or is my home catching fire a "very unlikely risk" I shouldn't be prepared for, too, in one's expert opinion?
pwinnski 8y ago
Many, many, many countries have far stricter controls on either weapons or ammunition, and those countries aren't filled with roving armed gangs attacking 90-year-old women and single mothers. This is fear-mongering, based on wildly unrealistic assertions about the world.
- 15155 8y ago
  > roving armed gangs attacking 90-year-old women and single mothers. So basically: this woman isn't allowed to defend herself from burglars, is that what you are saying? > This is fear-mongering, based on wildly unrealistic assertions about the world. It's great that you are privileged enough to live in an area without any violent crime! That's truly great! I don't live in a safe area, so I don't believe that you or others have any right nor place to make that decision for me. > fear-mongering, Home burglaries are the number one type of crime in my area. Home invasions happen, whether you want to call them "fear-mongering" or not. Should I just not be able to defend my home, my person, my family? Should I trust the good will of the felon who broke in NOT to harm me further or take my things?