Is it just me...

The reverse of this argument is also true. Little old ladies can attack big strong men if the little old ladies have guns.

Also, there are less lethal ways of defending ones self. Like mase.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the government makes it impossible for citizens to have guns,

[/ QUOTE ]

Itself an impossible task.

[ QUOTE ]
or as close to impossible as possible, crimes will be inherently less violent,

[/ QUOTE ]

Less violent? Define violent.

[ QUOTE ]
and no one will need guns to defend themselves b/c the criminals won't have guns either.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does a little old lady defend herself against a young aggressive male? Giving both a knife does not equalize the confrontation the way giving both a gun does. It is precisely this equalization that makes firearms the most effective form of personal defense humanity has yet seen. If you eliminate that - even if you magically make all guns instantly and irreversibly disappear - you tip the scales in favor of aggressors.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as we're living in theoretical "magic" land, let's make all guns only available for use as self-defense! That way no one ever uses guns in a criminal or accidental capacity! Ain't life grand.

-ptmusic

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
The reverse of this argument is also true. Little old ladies can attack big strong men if the little old ladies have guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

I get it now. You're the statist, jack-booted thug at the airport that's always searching the little old lady in the wheelchair, right? That explains a lot.

[coffeecrazy1]

You didn't refute his argument, pt...you're smarter than this last post. Reply again.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
You didn't refute his argument, pt...you're smarter than this last post. Reply again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the compliment. Pvn's post that I replied to was directed at another poster. I actually agree with pvn in this last post of his: aggressors will gain an advantage if all guns were magically removed.

So my comment was not to refute that particular argument, but to make two points:

1. to point out that while guns may be worthy weapons of self-defense, they are often used for negative purposes, and justifying the massive quantity of guns by pointing out their use as protection (ignoring all other uses) is disingenuous.

2. to goof on pvn's "magical" theory glasses through which he views the world. Ok, that ought to get his blood boiling!

-ptmusic

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The reverse of this argument is also true. Little old ladies can attack big strong men if the little old ladies have guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

I get it now. You're the statist, jack-booted thug at the airport that's always searching the little old lady in the wheelchair, right? That explains a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this an argument?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
2. to goof on pvn's "magical" theory glasses through which he views the world. Ok, that ought to get his blood boiling!

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? I was poking holes in his "just make guns illegal and everything gets better" theory.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, there are less lethal ways of defending ones self. Like mase.

[/ QUOTE ]
Mace is not nearly as effective. First, you have to be fairly close to the "macer" as they have to hit a small target like your eyes. Second, I've heard that mace doesn't always work on everybody. In fact, one can shield their face from the mace with their arm! And third, even if you do hit the criminal square in the eyes, that's no guarantee that he's not going to keep coming and be all the more enraged. There's a pretty good reason that when faced with a self-defense situation, our police use firearms.