|
and in terms of the common argument, that law abiding people need guns so that they can "protect themselves" from someone breaking into their house (ie - that they have the ability to slay the person breaking into their house)
In a situation where gun ownership is widespread, both housebreaker and homeowner are likely to be armed, and the situation is probably going to end in SOMEONE getting shot and poissibly killed.
In a situation where gun onwership is strictly prohibited, and illicit guns are expensive, illegal and rare - neither party will be armed, and the likely result of a robbery is simply a robbery.
For myself, and IMO the decent opinion of mankind, it is by 1000 times preferable to allow yourself to be robbed, than to have to kill someone to defend yourself. I would allow a burgular to take every possession rather than have to shoot him. Or risk myself or someone I cared about being shot.
__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."
The Gospel of Thomas
|