Gun Control & RKBA

... you didn't say that. You said that "lack of guns makes me a tough victim." Unless your grievously misspoke (which may be possible), what you were saying was that you could defend yourself against a non-gun assault. It has nothing to do with crime rates or odds or anything like that. You were asserting the desirability of a gun-free world for an able-bodied person.

Helpless but safer? That doesn't compute. Without a gun, who will a mugger mug? Whose home will be more likely to be invaded? By now I think you know the answer.


I'm picturing elderly Social Security recipients telling their Section 8 caseworkers that they need an apartment with a safe room. Yeah, that'll work.


So it's just as I thought: You would gladly remove an otherwise-defenseless person's means of self-defense if you think that doing so makes you statistically less likely to be the victim of a gun crime. Yeah, that's pretty self-absorbed.

Nobody's asking you to give up a kidney or anything else.


More likely to be victimized? Not a proven assertion. More likely to be shot? Yes, probably. Is that meaningful distinction? Only if you believe that it's better to be beaten or stabbed to death than to be shot. Remember that we're talking about the ... repeat after me: weak, elderly, and infirm. They tend not to take beatings particularly well.


Why do you say that? You have the same right to self-defense as anyone. But when you start talking about reducing your odds of victimization by increasing somebody else's, you tend to lose my sympathy.


No. I'm going to tell you that some people are trapped in neighborhoods where their lives are far more endangered than your own. The ones victimizing them have for the most part lost the legal right to own firearms, but they own them regardless. Taking the firearms away from their erstwhile victims would be an act of stunning callousness.