Have you ever taken the time to look into how many incidents of good shooter saving people there are?
As for an armed populace, there are many examples of large armed populations who do not commit such crimes.
Listen, I'm as horrified as everyone here. What I'm TRYING to do is explain to people who think it is simply a matter of "changing the law" are out to lunch and lack any understanding of American history or life.
I take issue with your last point, but we are so far gone here, that it's not worth it.
Have you ever stopped to consider that less guns would result in less people that are in need of saving?
Many examples of large armed populations who don't commit such crimes you say? Name a few.
Do you honestly think that America is such a conundrum that it's impossible for outsiders to understand it?
What I understand about American history is that an amendment, introduced 226 years ago in order to safeguard the free state, is now being interpreted as a godgiven right to carry arms. Arms that are in no way comparable to the sort of weapons that were available back then.
Self protection and the protection of property from 'bad guys' isn't exactly safeguarding from a possible infringment on the state's sovereingty and the context of a well organised militia has conventiently been brushed out, those are mere details ofcourse.
You take issue with my last point but you 're not willing to counter it? If fending off bad guys is working so well, then why is the number of gun incidents increasing?
Might it be because more guns will create more incidents?
Anyway, I think you guys are way too deep down the rabbit hole for any change in laws to have much of an effect, so I guess you'll just have to settle for wherever the ride'll take you. My guess is, it won't look pretty.
