While every citizen is afforded, the right to defend themselves (through the bearing of arms), it is not the only, singular solution. Rather, it is a component of a more comprehensive plan composed of an armed citizenry (properly trained), better community ties between police and citizens, community welfare (safe parks, schools, centers of activity) - providing outlets and safe alternatives.
It is one thing to tell the people to rise up against the gangsters, but you need to have a framework in place so that these people aren't left hanging in a vulnerable position.
So in other words, a problem like this would need to be attacked at different levels: addressing societal ills, resources, law enforcement, parenting, community, self-defense, neighborhood watch, neighborhood diligence.
I think that is reasonable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
Somehow DK is able to take any article and make it a reason why people should own more guns and bigger guns.
How many gun control threads do we need DK? This article is an interesting article in the context of how the government can prosecute and protect witnesses. However the article has no merit for discussion within the context of gun control.
|
While DK is certainly...enthusiastic about his cause, I agree that there is relevance to the main article. I do not agree with the seemingly one-dimensionality of the argument though. It is up to the individual to present their "case" and make a convincing argument or what-have-you.
I think the gun-control aspect is a fair point when addressing the protection of witnesses (citizenry). Could be more cost-effective too. Instead of assigning overworked police officers getting overtime or extra security, the witness can utilize their own Constitutional right to protect themselves (bear arms). I would also agree that this is not the ONLY point or solution.