@NoNameC68
I understand that taking an entire population's gun rights away is bad for those who weren't involved, but wouldn't you give up some freedoms for guaranteed protection?
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin.
Again, the Constitution promised that John Locke's ideas for true freedom would be considered, but also of the ideas of Rousseau. I know I talk about these guys a lot, but the entire constitution was based off the ideas of 4 philosophers: Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, and Montesquieu. If you ever, and I mean EVER want to understand the Constitution, you have to know who these guys are.
While those four men where diffidently influential in the constitution, you can hardly state that they where the only influences on it. It was a document effected by a ton of philosophers through history, to fully understand it you would have to fully understand all of western history.
Cars have a use.
So do explosives. So logically we should all carry around packs of C4. Cars have a use, and so do guns. Banning something because it can be used as a weapon is just stupid.
What use do guns provide? Sport, and maybe hunting? I mean *maybe* as in hardly ever.
Protection, for you city folk, my state does a lot of hunting and takes in a lot of money from people coming into hunt. The place I live in is a great hunting spot, many people move here specifically for the outdoor sports like hunting. Hunting is used a lot here, as it is in many other states.
It's rare, but it happens. Guns are frequently used in crimes. It doesn't matter of what the murder rate is, it's what the crime rate is.
You know what else is used in crimes? Pants. So therefore we should outlaw pants!
I fail to see your point. Crime rate has nothing to do with guns, saying it does is just stupid.
It's been done in England and Australia as far as I know. There is very little gun-violence over there.
And my state has low gun violence, as well as many other places with lax gun laws. If two can prove your point, two can prove my point. Montana and the thing that other guy mentioned prove my point, ah?
Give everyone guns? That wouldn't work.
And why not?
You'd have gangs get together, grow, gain more members, and you could essentially have armies charging through streets.
...Why? ....What would make you draw such a conclusion? There is no connection whatsoever to legal gun ownership and being in a gang.
Freak accident. If any of those robbers were mentally unbalanced in any way, nature or nurture, they could have killed her.
And if one of the robbers was the avatar of Cathulu, he could have devoured the entire store and started the end times. What ifs can be anything you want.
The thing is, guns are dangerous. Criminals understand this as much as law abiding people do. When you have a gun pointed to your head, chances are that you are not going to risk your life doing something stupid. Most people, even criminals, are going to run the hell away if you pull a gun on them.