Wrin wrote:
nick012000 wrote:
But Rule of Law + everyone being armed is better than either one of them alone.
I disagree. Introducing a weapon to a situation, even an even distribution of weapons, only raises the risk to everyone involved.
Situation: you wake up and somebody is in your house. Since we're running with the "everyone is armed" scenerio, this person more than likely has a weapon with which he or she is unlikely to hesitate to break the law. You, on the other hand, have a weapon with which you have a right to defend yourself. This situation has very likely become one where someone will be seriously injured or killed.
Removing the weapon from one of the persons in the scenerio changes the picture a bit. In all likelihood it'll be the person breaking the law already that has the weapon, so you know you need to stay quiet and call the authorities or let them take stuff. The three primary possibilities for this situation (assuming you don't confront the armed robber - that could go either way): you could call the authorities and likely show overwhelming force to the thief, you could be caught trying to call the authorities and become a knockout victim (you aren't likely to be able to put up much resistance, and are thus less likely to be killed), or you could let them take your stuff. These aren't all the best examples and I'm sorry for that, but it's pretty clear to me at least that having a weapon raises the stakes and makes this situation worse.
As for the situation where nobody has a weapon? Physical prowess plays a big part if you actually confront them, but you're less likely to be seriously hurt or killed in your own home when you know the surroundings and may well be able to scare them off. This situation is less likely than one person having a weapon because outlawing weapons just doesn't work. A person who breaks the law anyway won't usually hesitate to carry backup, especially illegal backup.
BA-A-A-A-A-A-A! Go get fleeced, sheep.
"By rendering myself defenseless, I therefore make myself less likely to need defense! BRILLIANT! I'll just let ruthless criminals who couldn't care less about my well-being walk all over me so I don't annoy one and have him respond with lethal force! Never mind the thousands of people in the country who cooperated with their attackers and were summarily murdered anyway just to eliminate witnesses or because the criminal was planning on killing them to begin with and they just made it easier for him."
Congratulations, you've decided to be a sheep. When the wolves come, I suppose they might decide you're not worth the effort if they're lazy.
If a country followed the same philosophy you do, you know what would happen? They'd get invaded, subjugated, and ruled by others who weren't as stupid.
If a criminal KNOWS he's likely to get shot when he commits a crime, do you think he's going to be more likely to murder everyone he encounters or more likely to avoid a situation that could kill him? Criminals usually take the easy way out; that's why they're criminals.
It's really quite simple. If you don't want large-caliber holes in you, don't fucking break into my house to steal my stuff and attack me in my sleep. Don't rape, don't rob, don't murder, and don't go in my house without my permission, and the odds are pretty darn good that I won't find a reason to kill you.
Kinda funny how crime goes down in areas when they allow law-abiding citizens to start carrying guns. I haven't seen any shoot outs over parking spaces or the last can of spam at the grocery store, but a lot less crimes are being committed because the criminals are afraid of their victims fighting back.
"God made men, but Sam Colt made them equal". Sure, a big guy who works out a lot and has experience fighting can probably kick my ass in no time flat, but add a gun to my end of the equation and suddenly the odds are a little better. Would YOU try to mug someone if you thought there was a good chance of getting ventilated in the process?