Two words: Fool's Paradise. That's what you're living in if you think that by keeping guns, your society as a whole will be safer.
What I find funny about the pro-gun argument is that the guys making it always assume that it will be the good guy who wins, should he face a situation which calls for an armed response. As Nashwan has quite correctly pointed out, this is not the case. Armed v. Armed results in far more good guy deaths than Unarmed v. Unarmed - you only have to look at the fatalities amongst the UK and US police forces (as Nashwan has quoted) for the proof.
Proof of what? What stat are you using to state that the good guys lose more often than win in armed vs armed situations? That is patently untrue. City police officers in nearly every major city will have at least 1 encounter with an armed criminal each day. I very seldom hear of one being injured or killed, although it does happen. The statistics Nashwan quoted show a very small percentage of police are being killed in the line of duty by armed criminals. Nice try, but a bit too big to swallow.
Your definition of "Fools Paradise" is that we fool ourselves into thinking our weapons make us safe. I see yours the same way, only opposite. You fool yourselves into thinking that if you disarm everyone, criminals will stop assulting you and you will be safe.
Your examples only further illustrate my point. People leave Africa for England not to give up their gun rights. Most of the ones fleeing the country never had guns to begin with. And they had no rights, not legal ones anyway.
You give France as an example, where only one death occurred during the rioting. One man who was brave enough to stand up to the thugs that had taken over the streets. One 61 year old man. Killed. I suppose you would rather let them run free and burn what they like then? If that 61 year old man had had a gun, perhaps without firing a shot he could have scared off the thugs who killed him, and he wouldnt have died. Also, he would have prevented another fire from being set. Two crimes that could have been prevented, had that old man had a gun. Instead, he's dead and they burned what they wanted anyway. I still salute him for having the courage to stand up to the mob and say "this isnt right!"
Beetle, luckily such disasters are few. Very seldom is a situation so bad that govornment forces or police or relief workers are unable to get to a disaster zone. I know there were a few instances in LA of armed homeowners that put a stop to beatings or lootings, and their interventions saved lives. New Orleans was a sad wakeup call for our emergency response services, and a glimpse into the even sadder state of affairs in the NOPD. It was the sheer amount of devestation that prevented the response that WAS organized from being effective at first. It was an absolute cluster-f**k on the part of the govt. that kept it from being effective for a much longer time. I cant give you any specific examples off the top of my head. However, can you give me specific examples of such an instance where things would have been better had guns been REMOVED from the situation? The emotions and feelings that drive a man to kill, to rage, to fear, to whatever it is that makes him do what he does in such situations...............thos
e things will drive him to kill whether he has a gun or not. It is the one about to be killed, the victim, that needs the chance to equalize the situation. The 61 year old man about to be killed by a raging mob of arsonists. The woman and her children, left alone and cut off from help, about to be raped and her children killed, their home raided. If you can honestly tell me you think those people would be better off without guns, then you and I have nothing further to say to each other Beetle. We simply see the world too differently.
