Quote:
Originally posted by seretogis
Good for you. However, people who carry handguns do not make an effort to get into trouble, and are taught to avoid bad neighborhoods, suspicious groups of people, etc. However, if you and Joe-Handgun-Carrier both are attacked seemingly randomly, Joe-Handgun-Carrier will have a much better chance of escaping unharmed. The most important aspect of shall-issue carry laws is that it acts as a crime deterrant, not that civilians packing guns can roam the streets in yellow tights and be superheroes.
If someone is determined to rob/rape/assault/kill you, there is little that you can do to stop them. You can only cross the street so many times. If you are clairvoyant and know beyond a doubt that you have absolutely no need for a gun for personal protection, then by all means do not get one. However, not all of us posess such gifts and so may feel the need to have a relatively fail-safe method of self-defense. Please don't suggest that those who carry are less competant or ignorant, as the opposite is true.
|
Ay, and therein lies the rub. It is very unclear whether Joe-handgun-carrier is better off. There is the argument worth entertaining that if you give up your wallet, get raped etc. that no one will be killed. You might even argue that bringing a gun into the situation escalates it to lethal force and only makes things worse. This is based on the belief that most criminals are not interested in killing or harming their victims. Determining what is really the case requires accurate statistical analysis that really isn't possible on the data available (police reports).
It's all an ugly numbers game that no one plays fair. Or at least that's my take on the issue.
To carry or not to carry that is the question. Whether tis better to suffer...
Yadda yadda you know the rest