Friday, November 9, 2007

Do you have the right to FEEL safe?

I often hear hoplophobe's state that they have the right to restrict or ban gun ownership because they have a "right" to "feel safe," & they don't feel safe knowing that other people around them might have guns.

Here is my answer to that over-used assertion. First & foremost, which constitutional amendment says "the right of the people to always feel safe & secure, shall not be infringed"? Secondly, how would they ever KNOW that nobody around them has guns even if they did ban them? So even after an all out ban they still would not achieve their desired dream of "feeling safe".

The wife of a friend of mine is deathly afraid of flying in planes because she doesn't feel safe while in the air. As a result, ALL of their travel takes place via automobile. She FEELS more safe in an automobile. Feelings & emotions do not always correlate with fact. The fact that she is more than 60 times more likely to die on any given trip in an automobile than on any given trip on an airplane will not make her FEEL safe while on an airplane.

She does not have a right to feel safe on an airplane, but she does have the freedom to choose whether or not she wants to fly in one. She just doesn't have the right to force me not to fly in an airplane just because she doesn't feel safe while my plane is in the air.

That is why I would never attempt to force anyone to own a gun as that would violate the freedom of citizens to choose for themselves whether or not to own a gun. Just don't try to take my guns away from me as long as I continue to be a law abiding citizen as that WOULD violate my 2nd Amendment PROTECTED but preexisting rights in addition to my freedom. Punish criminals who commit crime with any tool, it does not matter if the tool they choose is a baseball bat, knife, handgun, long gun, their own fists, or poison added to someone's drink. Don't punish either the gun or myself because some fool used a tool similar to the tool I use for personal defense as their weapon of aggression.

Guns were not created "for killing" as many hoplophobe's assert. I would never shoot anyone with intent "to kill" - I only would "shoot to stop" - stop their attack, stop their advance on my family. That is why a gun can be used as a tool of self defense - 98% of the time when guns are used to stop a criminal attack, no shot even needs to be fired. Even in the 2% of the time that I would be forced to shoot to stop the attack, 80% of gunshot victims will still survive with treatment at a hospital. After their trip to the hospital they can go straight to jail which makes all citizens more safe.

The above self defense scenario makes things much easer for Police too. If instead I dial 911 & Police arrive "only minutes" after I called to find my dead body, they would then have to waste a lot of resources trying to figure out who the bad guy was. They would then have to track him down so that they can place him on trial in hopes that he can be placed in jail for a few years before they let him back out on parole, that is of course only if he doesn't plea bargain his way out of jail time in the first place. How else is he going to find his next victim if we don't let him out early on parole or even earlier via plea bargain? It wasn't his fault he became a criminal after all, it was all the violence he saw on the cartoon networks while he was growing up. That Coyote was one evil dude. Or perhaps it was all that evil dihydrogen monoxide that he consumed while growing up.

Petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide (H2O):

4 comments:

Robocop said...

Logic has never been the strong point for gun prohibitionists. They will always present argument based on their twisted hearts.

Dustin said...

Very true robocop. I often see that anti gun nuts describe everything with emotional catch words & they also often state things without any basis in fact, such as the common myth that guns are more likely to be used to accidentally kill someone than to be used for self defense. Nothing can be further from the truth when you look at the actual data - less than 75 children under age of 16 are killed by accidental gun discharges per year compared to more than 2.5 Million defensive gun uses per year which means the gun is more than 33 THOUSAND times more likely to be used for self defense than to accidentally kill a child. The majority of accidental gun discharges that kill children result from an adult handling guns while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, so if you avoid that mix your risks are even smaller.

GunGeek said...

Not to mention that taking away my gun would make me feel unsafe.

What, I'm supposed to surrender my right to feel safe so they can enjoy their right to feel safe?

Oh, yeah, that makes sense.

Dustin said...

Very good & important point Gungeek. So we become disarmed so they can "feel" safe, now nobody is safe just so they can "feel" safe. Only the criminals would be armed, so we'd all be much less safe, just like the poor citizens of Washington DC or NYC.