| -CraZed- said: And? No one is claiming being armed makes you invincible.The idea is that in the event that someone is trying to do you harm you have a means to protect yourself. Like say in this instance... http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/home-girl-12-shoots-intruder-article-1.1188229 or this one... http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/georgia-mom-shoots-home-intruder-face-article-1.1234400 I could take up a whole page with these. Your tit-for-tat reply does nothing to to further the argument for allowing innocent, law-abiding, free men/women from owning and/or carrying a firearm to protect themselves. We could probably link to many stories where people are killed (and not necessarily by a firearm) for their jewelry, their cell-phone or their sneakers... http://www.myfoxhouston.com/story/24277622/2013/12/20/son-killed-over-air-jordans-now-mother-raising-awareness The bottom line here is that the arguments against free people excercising their right to keep and bear arms is born out of unrational fear and disdain. And while you certainly cannot prevent all tragedy, you can make sure that innocent people are allowed to defend themselves and others. |
I made no argument, I was just showing that the assinine mantra of 'Only a good person with a gun, can stop a bad person with a gun', is actually not true. Beyond that, I said nothing else. The absolute most you could derive from my post is that, maybe you (as in the folks who subscribe to this thinking) should come up with better arguments.
