- Mar 7, 2014
- 45,148
- 9,157
- 2,030
The logic of this argument, used again and again is just ridiculous.
I wouldn't want to be protected by armed guys. It would imply there's something wrong with the place I am.
But that doesn't mean I should be stupid and not have armed guards where they are necessary.
Who wouldn't fear some of these gun nuts enough to require protection?
Smart people. "Gun nuts" not out to rob, assault, or kill you. Criminals are, and if they are armed while you are not, you have no defense. It's really that simple.
Well no, nothing is ever that simple.
But it's worth a try pretending the world is simple and ignoring the facts in order to make everything fit how you want things to look.
Okay, what defense do you have when you encounter a criminal who is armed and you are not?
Is this about defense?
No, this is about statistics. Why?
Alaska, heavily armed state. It's the second most armed state after Wyoming.
It also has the highest rape rate in the US. So, all those guns, are they PROTECTING people or are they ENDANGERING people?
The US has more guns than any other first world western nation and it also has more murders than any other first world western nation.
As much as you can defend yourself with a gun, you're more likely to be killed by a gun.
Freedom is messy and chaotic, sometimes dangerous. It's still preferable to giving up freedom for the illusion of safety.
Ah, freedom.
Like the freedom of Mexicans to enter the US? Wait, all of a sudden the right prefers safety over freedom. Same with Muslims in the US.
Same with a lot of things.
I get it, people use whatever arguments they think will win them the argument, even if they're contradictory as hell to what they wrote for a previous topic.
It's called compartmentalization. But don't let this get in the way of a crap story.