The power of individuals. Took the law in her own hands. Maybe some evidence for permitting hand held weapons.
Or should I feel sorry for the circumstances that MADE the mugger attack the older women. I probably should feel real bad for him now - with being shot an all. He did not deserve that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I'm sure that was the only time anyone in the US was shot with a gun that day. After all, if it was 50 innocent people being shot to only one mugger being shot, then gun control would make sense. But your anecdotal evidence didn't mention any statistics, so the statistics must not be relevant to the argument.
First let me say that the majority of people who get shot on a daily basis are probably not innocent. It seems to me that most peope who get shot are into stuff they should probably not be into. Rival gangs, drug deals gone bad. Nothing is going to stop them from owning a gun. GUN CONTROl is not the answer. All gun control does is punish responsible citizens. Allowing responsible citizens to posses a handgun might make criminals think twice about hurting innocent people. Imagine if it was okay for all convenient store owners to have a gun. I think criminals might think twice about robbing them. Here in Chicago it is illegal for everyone to own a gun. Chicago is second in the country on crimes commited with guns. Second to DC - which has the same law. Hmmmmmm!
Your points seem to contradict each other. You say that most people killed by guns deserve it and we shouldn't feel bad, then go on to say that the murder rate in Chicago went up after gun control laws, meaning that those laws are bad. It would seem from your own logic that more drug dealers are getting killed in chicago than ever before and we shouldn't worry about it.
Arming citizens does not eliminate criminals, it just changes their mehtods. Imagine if every convenience store clerk had a gun? Well, as a criminal, I imagine I'd shoot them in the chest immediately before they had time to draw their gun. This is exactly the same reason as why the death penalty is not a deterant- criminals live with the spectre of death every day, you're not going to scare them straight.
Try this one: imagine that your a cop, highly trained at spotting concealed weapons, and you see someone with a gun tucked behind their belt walking into a convenience store. But you can't do anything, because it's legal for anyone to carry a concealed weapon, and if you stop and question people who look suspicious you'll probably end up being fired for profiling.
Now imagine it's illegal for ANYONE other than the polic eto have a gun. You see the guy with a gun, he's a criminal, you arrest him. Everyone is happy.
I hav absolutely no doubt that weak, half-measured, under-enforced gun control laws will not lead to lower crome rates. If you make the assumption that criminals will always be armed, ten on average it probably makes sense for everyone else to be armed as well. I'm only interested in gun control laws if they mean that criminals can't have guns, and in order to ensure that you can't let anyone have a gun. But the NRA lobbyists will never allow such a strong law to pass or be enforced anywhere in the country, so for now the issue is moot.
There will never be a law that can take away guns from criminals. They are criminals and will do what it takes to have a gun.
Second the majority of those who rob conveniant stores use the weapon as a threat. With any crime I guess. The gun is used as a means of control and power. They know the convenient store cant have one so they are in control by having a gun. If they know the clerk has a gun they no longer have control. These people are not so much interested in a murder rap so the chances of pulling the trigger are slim- they just need money to support a drug habit or whatever. They know the clerk or innocent victim will do what they say because the power the gun brings.
If you live with the 'spectre' of death do you follow gun control laws?
'I'm only interested in gun control laws if they mean that criminals can't have guns, and in order to ensure that you can't let anyone have a gun.'
So then its fair to say you are against gun control laws since the defining feature of a criminal is one that does not follow law. Neccesarily then, all gun control laws will fail to make it so 'criminals can't have guns' because criminal will ignore said laws.
You would oppose gun free zones in schools and public places since criminals use guns in such areas. You are against waiting peroids and registration since criminals will circumvent thise procedures to acquire weapons. You are against banning automatic weapons since criminals will be able to acquire such weapons illegaly on the black market.
Its quite possible that you are more anti-gun control then me. And im a freaking libertarian.
Yet another shitty argument:
'Now imagine it's illegal for ANYONE other than the polic eto have a gun. You see the guy with a gun, he's a criminal, you arrest him. Everyone is happy.'
So we should make illegal bookeeping since it will make it more easy to identify white collar crime. We should make illegal driving cars since it would make it easier to identify those that would break the law with a car. Shit we should also ban hands and feet since im sure they have been used to break the law and since everyone has one them its near impossible to separate the criminal from the citizen. Something tells me the solution to stopping crime is not to make all the acoutrement associated with a crime illegal. Without exageration you would proably end up with everything being illlegal.
Who ignores whose arguments?
Post a Comment