Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ziadel
people are more inclined to wait until a situation is too far gone for them to really be effective, before taking action.
i.e. don't shoot a guy just because he is waving a gun around, wait until he's pointing it directly at you before taking action.
and if potential criminals don't weigh the risks, well, go live in vermont, ANYONE can carry a pistol either openly or concealed. No permits, nothing, got a gun? well put the fucker on and go about your business. Vermont also has one of the lowest crime rates of any state in the union? why? because criminals figured out, hey, they all got guns, if I try to take their shit, I'm gonna get shot.
D.C.? Guns are pretty much outlawed, violent crime is rampant.
The correlations between more lawful gun owners and less crime is very well documented and apparent.
|
Your gun argument has absolutely nothing to do with the topic (beyond the fact that the argument is purely weak - a comparison of Vermont to D.C.? Hardly compelling evidence, even were it to pertain to the topic). Criminals may consider a an armed populace as less appealing marks - but that argument has nothing to do with whether criminals consider the probability that a mark will weigh the risks of being arrested or sued for defending themselves. I don't believe a mark would ever do that and I don't believe a criminal would ever stop and consider whether a mark would ever do that.
Of course people wait before defending themselves - this is born of the desire NOT TO KILL. That is as it should be. But whether they do or do not wait is irrespective of whether they should be questioned on the matter.