Quote:
Originally Posted by Arclyte
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Yes, let's ignore common sense and every other piece of evidence and claim that bowing to the wishes of your attacker is better than being able to defend yourself.
|
It's not common sense. I could easily imagine a scenario in which, statistically speaking, you would be less likely to be shot and/or killed if you do not own a gun. Your chances of avoiding physical harm may be better if you are forced to avoid confrontation and/or adhere to criminal demands. When both parties have guns, violence may erupt where it may not have been necessary.
But that's just one possibility. I don't know. I'd like to see a truly representative study, but it'd be very hard to get that type of data. The problem is that a) reports of successful gun defense are not objective. People report successfully defending themselves when they shoot a round into the sky to scare away thieves that may or may not exist. Also, plenty of successful defenses are never reported at all. And b) particularly in urban environments, many people that own and carry guns are a self-selected collection of people more prone to being victims of gun violence. Some old lady living in a high rise with a doorman isn't exactly equivalent to a 19-year old youth involved in the drug trade. Whether or not that 19 year old is carrying a gun, he's at far greater risk of being shot.
It's mostly irrelevant, though. We're decades away from a serious discussion about limiting the right to own a gun at all. At best (or worst), we may be able to pass legislation limiting a person's ability to buy weapons with the capacity to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.