Quote:
|
The presence of a firearm certainly has the potential to make a bad situation worse, and this is the central fear that drives liberal anti-gun sentiment
|
The presence of a firearm certainly has the potential to make a bad situation better, and this is the central belief that drives the RTKBA.
Either way you look at this an argument can made that (in this case) guns are needed. Either everyone has a right to defend themselves or everyone has the right to have a police officer present...
I understand part of the argument against guns, even though the main tenant of that argument is flawed. Most of the argument against guns are along the lines of 'If they did not have a gun, the teenagers would have only beat each other up and the victim would have lived.' Believing that guns caused the problem, not the fact that the perpetrator has failed society.
What about the gang fights that end up with someone killed by a knife, a chain, or any blunt object? The assault and murder still happened with-out a gun. Does that make it OK now, because a gun was not involved?
There are some members on this board who are from England, I hope they chime in with their responses. Criminals by definition do not care about the law.
But what about the rapist? How do you explain to the person raped that she does not have the right to protect herself? How do you explain that she should have called the police?
I, personaly, do not believe I should have to give up my personal safety (the right to own a firearm) for the 'greater good' of mankind.
I am disabled. I have trouble walking, and there is no way I could ever run. So for me the argument that I should run away from trouble does not hold water. The argument that I should avoid trouble does not hold water if I am in bed and someone breaks into my house, or for the lady that gets raped in her own house. (Two very different scenarios, but both applicable in the case of self defense.) I live in a very rural area of Missouri, if I call for help, it could take the sheriff up to thirty minutes to get here.
My last example is the person who has the protection order against someone else. If the person whom they have the protection order against does not obey that protection order, that order and the paper it is written on is useless. I believe a lot more people are harmed by rape and beaten to death than by guns. (Sorry, this example is from a paper I wrote in college and can not find. I believe I got the stats from an FBI data base.)
So why do most liberals and most conservatives disagree on gun ownership? We all have deeply held beliefs, we are influenced by society and the influences range from media to our immediate family and environment.
I hope this discussion remains civil and does not flame into name calling. It could be very interesting.