Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.
If they weren't afraid that everyone they encounter is armed to the teeth (which sometimes they are) they would be less "primed to shoot". If you have an armed citizenry then the police need to be armed too, or they will be mostly ineffective.If the police are not prepared for an armed person that they are pursuing, then they are inadequately prepared. Prohibition didn't get rid of alcohol. The drug war didn't get rid of drugs. A gun ban won't get rid of guns. A person being pursued for a crime should be assumed to be armed even if guns are outlawed. There is a saying "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".There is another saying "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away". These two sayings are my answer to CNC's question earlier. I do feel safer owning a gun. That was reinforced by an experience of a coworker's daughter. She only lived a few miles from me. Her house was broken into while she was at home. She locked her bedroom and called 911. Fortunately for her, the guy was only interested in a quick grab of things of worth downstairs. The bedroom door lock would not have stopped anyone. Also I'm not a gun nut as I defend gun ownership. I do not own a handgun, only hunting related guns. They are available if needed to defend myself. I feel far safer knowing that option is available than trusting the person illegally entering my home is not armed. Also I know time is of the essence. Every single gun does not disappear with a ban. PSU
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |