Quote:
Originally posted by jaguar
If 50% of the population are carrying a 9mm pistol, crooks are more likely to be carrying, and using.
|
That's an unsupported assertion. Criminals will always carry, and for a convicted criminal to carry isn't legal--even here-- for whatever good the law does. Point being that they don't care if it's legal or not.
If a bad guy is determined to kill me for my purse or after a rape, it won't matter much to me whether he does it with a baseball bat, a knife, or a Glock. But if *I'm* carrying, I have superior force available in the first two cases, and equal force in the third. Naturally, I'm at a disadvantage in that he has the attacker's initiative until I understand his violent intent. But the odds in my favor are much, much better. And if he should suspect that I may be armed, he's less likely to attack. In a society that has disarmed me, he *knows* I'm disarmed unless he's had the misfortune to decide to bust on another crook. That's how the 9/11 hijackers knew they could take control of four jumbo jets with no more than *boxcutters*, and their victims are just as dead as they would have been if the weapons had been Uzis.
The argument that I should disarm in the hopes that the crooks will is silly, because they won't. Prohibition of guns works no better than prohibition of drugs, or of alcohol.
Say, Chewbaccus--if PA isn't a state, does that mean I don't have to pay income tax to the Feds? :-) People in Massachusetts, Virginia and Kentucky will be delighted too..