imported post
And mine:
So let’s look at the rationale here.
The police, the FBI, and the politicians are supposed to protect us.
Exactly how do you propose that they do this? Are we to have a police state, or government funded body guards?
All of the above merely respond AFTER a crime has been committed.
And your ‘wild west’ argument is untrue and very tiresome. For all of the years in all of the stats where law abidng citizens have been allowed to defend themselves wherever they have a right to be, exactly where can you point to where the wild west exists?
And where can you point to where shots have been accidentally fired in a restaurant?
One set of anti-self defense folks point to the high rate of violence as a reason to disarm honest citizens, and you point to those whose obligation it is to protect us, so we should delegate that responsibility to them. How do you possibly reconcile the two?
All you have is your “can you imagines” to support your position, even in the face of conflicting reality.
One does not need to imagine what happens in a country where citizens are disarmed. The skyrocketing crimes in, post-disarmament countries of England and Australia are there for all to see, except for those who are willingly blind.
Given the FACT that armed citizens have not created the havoc you imagine, the FACT that the state can only respond to a crime AFTER it has occurred, and the FACT that many, many honest folks are attacked outside of their property, I fail to understand your position.
I respect your right to have your feelings and your overactive imagination, but I have no obligation to modify my behaviour or rights to accommodate them. And if I do, how do you propose to respect MY feelings of retaining the ability to protect my loved ones everywhere we may be, in the face of the reality of the violence that truly exists?