Quote:
Originally posted by timalkin
Maybe it's just me, but I seem to find that many of our brothers and sisters in Europe (and probably Canada too) tend to have a "victimistic" attitude. It seems as though they would rather be beaten/raped/killed before they could ever consider defending themselves from violent criminals. Almost like a flock of sheep?
|
Kind Timalkin:
A victimistic attitude? Flock of sheep? Hardly. Ad homenium attacks? Hardly good rhetoric.
To recapitilate my point: if you do not want burglars/rapists/straw men to attack your posessions or persons, keep them out of your house in the first place. That is only logic. If they skip your house, they are not in your house to attack you. Do you not agree that is the best possible outcome? The alternative is to long for a confrontation.
Once they are in your home, reducing the chance of harm to yourself (I would suggest) is the prudent course.
Police, security agencies, almost everybody except the gun industry says that without a doubt, not being found is the best course of action. Once found, not giving the bad folks a reason to shoot you becomes the safest course. Best way to get shot during a burglary? Produce a gun.
If the only way to prevent harm is to inflict harm, I will. To that end, I have taken self-defense training (at my parents - both police officers - suggestion) and I maintain my abilities through periodic re-training. There are objects scattered around my house that would make formidable weapons indeed.
If research demonstrated that I was safer with a firearm in my house than without, I would not hesitate to get one. This is not ideology, it is science. Nor is this the result of some "sheepish" "victimistic" attitude. I make a habit of trying to think for myself and not following a herd - whether pro- or anti- gun.