Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
Sacrificing how? By removing guns from the streets, guns which are often responsible for the inflated murder rates in those communities, and going after the same gun crime? I'll take that sacrifice.
I can't speak for others, but I'm not arguing against the appropriateness of his self defense argument, apparently he convinced the jury his fear was reasonable along with his response. What I'm arguing for is something that would shift the burden of proving that reasonableness onto someone who elects to carry a concealed weapon.
|
Most gun offences do not involve legally licenced guns. The case of a legally licensed gun being involved in a killing is the exception, not the rule.
If you promote stiffer gun laws, you are affectign socio-economically disadvantaged classes far more than the people you are arguing should be protected.
And yes, you are arguing against his defence. Your arguing that he should have to prove his defence on a higher burden, IE it should be less available.
Once again, what you're talking about would result in an all out assault on working class and ghetto-ised Americans, who make up the vast majority of violent crime and gun offences in America. No different than the "war on drugs".