Because the type of killing employed by knife-wielding intruders is bad.
The homicide rate (the number of murders per 100,000 inhabitants) is a more reliable measure of a country’s safety level because, unlike other crimes, murders are usually always reported to the police. According to the latest OECD data, the United States’ homicide rate is 5.0, higher than the OECD average of 2.1 and one of the highest in the OECD. In the United States, men are far more likely to be murdered than women, as the homicide rate for men is 7.8 compared with 2.2 for women.
If killing wasn't inherently wrong, why would you feel the need to stop someone from killing you?
After all, there is nothing inherently wrong with it and so no need to prevent it from happening.
You don't even understand the point you are trying to make.
It's called the will to live, dumbass. And the will to protect. Pretty simple isnt it?I know perfectly well what 'inherent' means.
If killing isn't inherently bad, why would you be so desperate to stop the knife-wielding intruder from killing you?
There is nothing inherently bad about killing; so why the need to prevent it from being done to you?
I mean you're totally right. Criminals have the utmost respect for the law, but after some arbitrary event, don't give a shit about it. I mean, wow that make so much sense.
The fact is, there are tons of gun laws, many of which either poorly enforced or so ridiculous that they cannot be practically enforced. Why not focus some of your energy into making the laws we already have, work, before shoving more laws down our throats deterioriates the lives of millions of law abiding gun owners, while doing nothing regarding criminal (i.e., law-ignorant) activity.
It's called the will to live, dumbass. And the will to protect. Pretty simple isnt it?
I understand this point.Frankly, I really don't feel comfortable with everyday citizens owning guns. I supposedly work with some of the brightest people in the world and there is no way in hell I would trust some of them with my health, let alone a gun. Consequently, I wouldn't trust an everyday guy on the street with a gun either.
I don't know, people think of it differently. As in, person A: "OMG people out there could hurt me! Better carry a gun to defend myself!" and person B: "OMG people out there could hurt me! Better institute laws preventing people from getting guns!"
So be nice, I'll say there's merit to both arguments. Me? I agree with person A and would prefer not to depend on the government and the willingness of my fellow citizens to follow laws for my personal safety.
How can it, if there is nothing inherently bad about it?
I understand this point.
However, I would place my trust in an everyday guy with a gun if he has had the proper training in using said gun.
Gun ownership isn't for everyone. Duh.
The right to do so must exist though.
most 'criminals' were breaking the law when they were children. Stealing money or things from other kids, shoplifting and bullying. Criminals start young and don't change when they grow up because they don't care about anyone but themselves.before criminals are called criminals, they're law abiding citizens.
most 'criminals' were breaking the law when they were children. Stealing money or things from other kids, shoplifting and bullying. Criminals start young and don't change when they grow up because they don't care about anyone but themselves.
Because that's what happens in every developed country where firearms aren't generally available, isn't it?
If you had any idea of what you're talking about it would help. Please show some figures that suggest that former gun owners in the UK handed in their guns, then acquired some knives to commit crime. Handgun ownership was rare in the UK even before the change in law after the Dunblane massacre.
Or you could just admit that you made something up to support your argument.
My question to person A is, why do you need a gun to protect yourself? Why not use your judgement? Avoiding a bad situation often has better outcomes than having to figure your way out of a predicament. I am perfectly aware that some troubles cannot be avoided, but why a gun? Why not a knife, a taser, or mace? Guns are powerful, and allowing every American to have the right to possess such power is plain scary.
I guess I would fall into the category of person C. If people are going to own a gun, they better be very well trained, evaluated physically and mentally on a regular basis.
Knives, tazers, pepper spray, and other "personal defense" weapons are a TERRIBLE idea. They are used by police officers as a escalation of force.
I'm speaking on actual authority as well as a certified OC pepper spray instructor and collapsible baton instructor and ex police officer.
Your plan on evaluations and continued evaluations is hogwash and would never happen.
even as a 'right' gun ownership comes with responsibilities.Iron, everyday guys with proper training is not enough - proper training with a gun is NOT enough. Just because you have received training and passed tests demonstrating your ability with a firearm does not mean that gun owner is practicing those good habits.
Fact is, some people slack on practicing good habits at some point or another. That is why gun owner should be evaluated more regularly. Also, making gun ownership a right would diminish the need for proper training. If gun ownership is a right that is obtained after becoming an American citizen, then there is no need for stringent training. It needs to be changed to a privilege that must be earned and maintained.
If physicians must renew their license to practice on patients, I don't see why gun owners can't be tested on a regular basis to demonstrate their capacity.
So then there is something inherently wrong with killing.
You just don't get it. If its not a gun it's anything that could be a weapon. It doesn't have to be a school; how about a parade or a street concert. Are we going to abolish and ban every possibility?
Common sense required....college education is nice but not needed.
I don't think guns and cars are fair comparisons either. However, I do think both should be privileges - gun ownership should NOT be a right.
Frankly, I really don't feel comfortable with everyday citizens owning guns. I supposedly work with some of the brightest people in the world and there is no way in hell I would trust some of them with my health, let alone a gun. Consequently, I wouldn't trust an everyday guy on the street with a gun either.
most 'criminals' were breaking the law when they were children. Stealing money or things from other kids, shoplifting and bullying. Criminals start young and don't change when they grow up because they don't care about anyone but themselves.
thats interesting because there are millions of people who carry guns with them on the streets every day. how many of them have attacked you?
It's not about how many of them have attacked, it's about trusting those people. If you knew criminals lived around you, but committed no crimes against you, would you still trust them? I would not. Even though there are millions of people with guns, I certainly would not trust the majority of them.
Not sure what you mean. The majority of legal gun owners are not criminals.
I mean it's the same thing I mentioned above. Some people don't trust others, so they make a personal decision and decide the method to best protect themselves. Other people don't trust others, and instead look to change how everyone else behaves.
Could you elaborate? I would like to hear a former police officers opinion.
The only downfall to regular evaluations is the cost and amount of personnel needed. However, some of these costs and personnel needs could be offset if gun owners were required to pay fees for those evaluations.