Quote:
Originally Posted by flylock shox
Interesting issue from a moral/political/legal standpoint.
I think the idea that you should be able to defend yourself and your family through the use of force is sensible. But I read a hell of a lot more stories about kids finding guns in the house and shooting each other, and fathers going postal on their families, than I read about homeowners successfully defending themselves from intruders through the use of a firearm. In fact, I can't remember the last time I read a story like the latter.
I mean, the right to defend oneself with a firearm makes sense in theory, but I'm not sure it makes any sense in practice. I would bet that having a firearm in the house costs about as many lives as it saves, even where the owner is a "good citizen."
Also, I have to wonder whether most good-natured law abiding citizens would really have it in them to shoot somebody if the situation arose, much less whether they should shoot the person in the circumstances.
|
These are good points.
Firearms = safer or No firearms = safer is the basis of the issue. From personal observation I feel the total ban on firearms in simply not the answer as in London and Toronto. There is simply not enough (nor with there ever be) law enforcement to go around to protect everyone. Whereas the total opposite of " any and all firearms for all" is no better.
I feel it has to be a personal choice with restrictions.