Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Strange Famous
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)
|
better them than me comes to mind.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Strange Famous
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.
|
and stopping crime isn't the agenda, is it. why do anti gun people support letting the criminal do what they want?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Strange Famous
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.
|
thats a fallacy. banning guns in a city isn't going to make guns more expensive and as far as neither party being armed....I laugh in your general direction. In the absence of a gun, a criminal will use a knife or a club of some sort. But i guess the homeowner getting his head bashed in is much better than the criminal getting shot, right?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Strange Famous
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.
|
so when is the 'come in, i'm open' sign going up on your front lawn?