Gun Control & RKBA

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.

Ok, you have a fair point in an apartment. Maybe. But a safe room could be constructed with a metal secure door and sandbags or old refrigerators. It doesn't need to be a richy rich hidden passage way with a $50,000 panic room. Not that it's likely one would be shooting through the wall if you went into a room with a metal door anyway.

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.

And they gladly put me in harm's way to have theirs. Doesn't sound like they're being any less self absorbed.

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.

Your assertion that more guns means less victimizations also has yet to be proven. And old and infirm people often survive being beaten up. Hell, they survive being shot. So while they're also more likely to die if they get beaten up, they're also more likely to die if they get shot too.

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.

And you tend to lose my sympathy when you say their life trumps mine.

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.

Link? but even if so: Because it's fucking easy to have a gun when the country is awash in them and guns are for the most part legal everywhere. You start making just carrying a gun a felony sentence for anyone and the only people who have guns are going to be organized criminals.

And said old/infirm people are not often victimized by gang bangers or mobsters. They're victimized by their own family members. When their heroin addict grandson wants to take grandma's jewelry and he has a gun it's worse than if he doesn't.