![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Interviews with criminals show that many pick and choose. Evidence has
shown that violent crime decreased in counties that changed their handgun laws to allow people to carry. (in the US - See Lott) Areas that imposed handgun control saw increased violent crime. Clearly, if you outlaw guns only those who obey the laws will be unarmed. The handgun bans have been ineffective in the US and I suspect elsewhere. Criminals will keep using them until more effective deterrence is used. The bottom line is that I would prefer to be allowed to defend myself legally. Luckily I am not as ripe a target for some violent crimes as other people. I certainly would not refuse a 110 lb woman the right to defend herself against a 220lb rapist. Firearms are just tools. They will be used for evil by bad people and for good by good people, just as other tools are used. "Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message hlink.net... If you were a criminal and wished to perpetrate a crime - would you choose an area where you were very certain law-abiding citizens had no way to protect themselves, or an area where you were likely to end up on the receiving end of justified defense? What on earth makes you think that criminals somehow pick and choose where they are going to commit a crime? Most of them don't have a whole array of transportation options. They more or less have to commit their offenses within walking distance of wherever they wake up in the morning. They don't consult the internet, the census bureau, or even the World Almanac to analyze handgun ownership patterns across various zip codes. Based on interviews with offenders, it rather appears that most of them don't even have any firm plan of committing an offense until maybe 10 seconds before they actually do it, and they simply aren't bright enough to weigh all the costs and benefits in those 10 seconds. Most of them wouldn't be able to form a coherent thought if you gave them 10 hours. I agree that, for you and -- both reasonable people -- it makes sense to avoid areas that are well protected by an armed citizenry. But the guy who is desperately looking for $20 to get his next blast isn't all that reasonable, and will go for the next open window he sees. If he had the ability to think about things, he would be concerned with the pressence or absence of an armed homeowner. But he isn't thinking about that, and nothing is going to make him think about it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Dover short pilots since vaccine order | Roman Bystrianyk | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 29th 04 12:47 AM |
[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots? | No Spam! | Military Aviation | 120 | January 27th 04 10:19 AM |
[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots? | No Spam! | General Aviation | 3 | December 23rd 03 08:53 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |