Hero999
Banned
How can a gun be used to defend yourself when your attacker is also armed?
The whole idea of allowing people to be armed in order to defend themselves is total rubbish.
A gun is totally useless against another person also carrying a gun, it simply becomes Russian roulette.
What decides who wins a gun battle?
The person who draws first.
If someone is using a gun to threaten you, they've already drawn first and won before you even get the chance to reach for your weapon.
If someone really wants to rob you, they'll shoot you in the back, before you even get the chance to react.
If someone wants to burgle your house, they'll make sure they're armed, wearing a bulletproof vest and will be prepared to shoot you before you get there first. They'll also probably be used to the idea of shooting someone and be a better shot than an innocent person.
As far as the idea that allowing citizens to bear arms will prevent a totalitarian regime from gaining power; that's nonsense too. The army will always have more powerful weapons than average civilians; what use is an ordinary rifle against an army equipped with tanks, grenades and automatic weapons?
The only argument I can see for allowing people to carry weapons is a pure libertarian one; the idea that people should be free to carry a gun to use as they see fit, as long as it doesn't break the law.
I think that some gun control is a good idea, simple because guns a dangerous and the authorities should control anything that's highly dangerous. Cars are dangerous so the government licences them and restricts their use to only those who have passed a test, indicating they're competent to drive them and I don't see why it shouldn't be any different with guns.
I think that limiting the supply of arms is a good idea because it does make it harder for criminals to get hold of them, even though there's no way of stopping it.
The whole idea of allowing people to be armed in order to defend themselves is total rubbish.
A gun is totally useless against another person also carrying a gun, it simply becomes Russian roulette.
What decides who wins a gun battle?
The person who draws first.
If someone is using a gun to threaten you, they've already drawn first and won before you even get the chance to reach for your weapon.
If someone really wants to rob you, they'll shoot you in the back, before you even get the chance to react.
If someone wants to burgle your house, they'll make sure they're armed, wearing a bulletproof vest and will be prepared to shoot you before you get there first. They'll also probably be used to the idea of shooting someone and be a better shot than an innocent person.
As far as the idea that allowing citizens to bear arms will prevent a totalitarian regime from gaining power; that's nonsense too. The army will always have more powerful weapons than average civilians; what use is an ordinary rifle against an army equipped with tanks, grenades and automatic weapons?
The only argument I can see for allowing people to carry weapons is a pure libertarian one; the idea that people should be free to carry a gun to use as they see fit, as long as it doesn't break the law.
I think that some gun control is a good idea, simple because guns a dangerous and the authorities should control anything that's highly dangerous. Cars are dangerous so the government licences them and restricts their use to only those who have passed a test, indicating they're competent to drive them and I don't see why it shouldn't be any different with guns.
I think that limiting the supply of arms is a good idea because it does make it harder for criminals to get hold of them, even though there's no way of stopping it.