Go to Second Amendment Rights
- Add a comment
- Go to Too much control
It's a choice
And a choice every free citizen should have. One is not required to own a gun for any reason, including protection, but even a frail citizen may have a neighbor who owns a gun, and that neighbor is closer than the police in most instances.
Also, there is the element of doubt. A burgler in an area with legal gun owners does not know which house is armed and which one is not. Even that frail old lady may have a small handgun. I have seen very small guns that shoot anywhere from a .22 Cal to .38 Cal.
posted by
archiew
on October 15, 2003 at 5:22 AM
| link to this | reply
Is it easier to restrict access to guns for the masses and concentrate policing efforts on the
minority who obtain them illegally? Or, is it easier to train the entire population in how to handle firearms? And in the second scenario how do you protect people too frail to handle a gun.
posted by
beachbelle
on October 14, 2003 at 9:26 AM
| link to this | reply
AngieK
Excellent point. Logical, concise, yet not understood by many who would want strict control of law-abiding citizens owning guns.
posted by
archiew
on October 14, 2003 at 9:07 AM
| link to this | reply
Someone will always have a gun
I just don't want it to be only the wrong type of people. That's what happens when things are illegal that shouldn't be.
posted by
Flumpystalls3000
on October 14, 2003 at 8:54 AM
| link to this | reply
Thanks!
I'll look those up and give them a read. Just ordered
Deriliction of Duty, which I've been told is pretty good.
posted by
archiew
on October 5, 2003 at 11:06 AM
| link to this | reply
You might be interested in...
...John Lott's book: More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws . Here is a link to an interview with him about the book.
My own Thrawn Rickle sometimes touches on this subject as well. Specifically, check out GUN CONTROL, OR "BAD GUN! BAD, BAD GUN!". 
posted by
arGee
on October 5, 2003 at 9:34 AM
| link to this | reply