People get mad all the time, without guns, the odds of survival would be better. Or maybe you prefer the "right to carry" solution, where we all have guns, so every little altercation has better potential to turn deadly. What we need is more guns, not less!
You stumbled on the solution!:))
You know, what you say, on its surface, makes sense but the evidence is contradictory. In his recently published book More Guns, Less Crime : Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws (Studies in Law and Economics) by John Lott, Jr., Lott points out just the opposite is true. What is really interesting, while attacked for any number of reasons by the anti-gun crowd for his work, his statistics aren't challenged at all. As a matter of fact since carry laws were initiated there has been only one case of a legally concealed firearm being used in an altercation. The case involved an automobile accident where one person physically attacked the other. The assaulted person used his weapon as a last resort in fear of his life. It did not result in a fatality.
No doubt we would have less deaths by guns if all guns were taken out of our society but that is an impossibility. Besides, we've had far easier access and more firearms per capita for over 200 years without the carnage one would expect if all the anti-gun advocates' premises were valid. We can either choose to attack inanimate objects used in committing crimes or our culture and values as a means to curb violence and crime. I choose to attack ways to change our culture, otherwise we have the same amorality without guns-would we really be that much better off?
halfscot |
