| thranx said: you said you NEVER heard of it happening. It happens quite often though.So maybe for someone reason the media just doesn't report on it. Maybe its not bias, maybe they dont think it will get them good ratings (maybe you just choose not see it when its reported on, I dont know). Either way, people stop crimes with guns, not just in their homes, but out in public also. Police for the most part can only pick up the pieces after a crime has occured. |
Sorry I didn't mean Never ever, I just meant that it's extremely rare. And judging by your 8 crimes (with examples dating back to over ten years ago), the reports agree.
The case for anti-gun control activists is frankly the same argument the gun control people push. Anti-control people say people are less likely to commit crimes when they know that anyone could possibly be carrying a gun. The pro-gun control people say people are less likely to commit crimes knowing they will be caught.
You can post instances where people having guns stopped crimes, but the other side can do the same. The argument about which stance is better is a dead-end. They both work.
But yes, my only problem with your point is about the media. There is no conspiratorial media bias, because the media will report on anything, they tend not to fudge details because they know they will be called out on it by others' journalistic integrity.
And yes, that's my only problem with your argument, because I know that people having guns helps prevent crime. The question is whether it's better than gun control. A person with a gun can potentially stop a crime, but what if they don't? Where do the police turn for information if there aren't checks put in? How do the police mop up? I agree that people should be allowed to carry weapons to defend themselves, I just don't see the problem with requiring background checks, and paper trails stemming from the second hand market.
