Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevo
I think the point a lot of anit-gun folks miss is that there are things in life you can't control (a out of control vehicle running you down), things you cont control much (like dying in a fire), and things you can control (your own self-defense from a person meaning to do you harm). None of the pro-gun rights folk on this board are arguing that a gun will make them safe from everything. Only that being a well-trained, prepared gun owner puts your self-defense from an attacker in your own hands, more so than not having a gun would. Everyone knows you are more likely to die in a car accident than by a bullet and no one is arguing anything different. But that is no reason to leave your life in the hands of an attacker should you ever be in that situation. Most often the best arguement an anti-gun person can come up with is that it will never happen to you so you don't need to prepare yourself for it.
|
What has to be weighted against that is the danger of gun ownership, legal or illegal. The production and distrubution of guns has a direct tie with illegal arms, by which the very criminals who gun owners are trying to stop aquire their weapons. I see it as no different than any other arms producer: bombs, missles, munitions, etc. It is apparent that the producers don't care who the consumers are. As someone who believes in small government, I think it is their responsibility to stop this from happening. Now, obviously they will not stop producing weapons that continue to fall into the wrong hands on their own. Money > morality in most buisnesses, so I would suggest (like I've done in another gun thread) that we simply hold the manufacturer responsible if their weapon is used in a crime (unless the weapon has been stolen from the person who legally purchased it). If they want to stop lawsuits, then they work harder to make sure that their guns are only legally sold and used.