PurpleRain said:
To argue with ultreos2 I'd be way off the tracks. I'm going to just agree with Dooly95 though.
What's with all this protecting yourself anyway? I never understood that at all. Like, really really can not for the life of me make that part out. Sorry.
If I wanted to protect myself I'd carry a suitcase full of anti-venom and swim in the ocean with chainmail being in Australia with all those snakes, spiders and sharks about.
If I really want to protect myself I'd never drive a car either, nor go outside without ten layers of bubble wrap. The whole 'protect yourselves with a gun' argument is flawed as guns aren't going to save me from death.
There's a point you're ignoring here. I think it's well established that if someone is bound and determined to kill you, they're going to find a way. Having a handgun allows you to stop someone else from threatening you, even if they're bigger, stronger, crazier, or whatever. And this is what makes them unique among weapons--in short, they are an equalizer.
People who engage in violent crime are, in one way or another, playing a dominance game. Their basic premise is "I'm going to rob/rape/murder you, because it satisfies my desires, and you can't stop me." More often than not, they prey on people physically smaller or weaker than them. Always, they use fear to their advantage. Most people would rather avoid confrontation than fight, because not getting hurt > getting hurt. This is fine when all the other guy is after is your wallet; you can recover from lost money. When the attacker is bent on doing you harm though, this avoidant attitude only aids him.
When you are attacked, and you pull out a knife, or a can of mace, or a Tazer, chances are your assailant is just going to laugh at you. Such things, in his mind, only make it more fun by increasing the challenge. When you pull out a gun, though, and make it clear that you're willing to shoot if he persists, it changes the game. Now, you're not a target, you're a threat. And nine times out of ten, this is going to ruin his fun. No fun=no reward, and all he has left is the danger, now amplified, of getting hurt/dying. Yes, there are always going to be people far enough gone that they won't care--this is why you keep the gun loaded, and learn how to hit a target. No, you aren't guaranteed to succeed if this happens, that's just how life works.
Outlaw the guns, and this deterrent goes away. Now, it's all about whether you can overpower your attacker, and avoid taking mortal damage in doing so. He's got the advantage of initiative, since chances are you weren't expecting to be attacked. In the case of this psychotic fellow on the news, he could have very well achieved the same effect by sneaking up on his parents with a large kitchen knife while they were sleeping--perhaps more, since disengaging from a knife-wielding attacker in your face is a lot harder in the confines of the average home. "Pointy end goes in the other guy" isn't
that hard to accomplish, and a good adrenaline rush can make up for clumsiness.
As for other defensive measures, having a dose of anti-venom close to hand is not a bad idea if you live in an area with lots of venomous snakes. Chainmail is a bit ostentatious, but clothing with Kevlar inserts and similar ablative measures are easy enough to get online, and often much less heavily regulated than firearms. Heck, even a good leather jacket will provide you a measure of protection against grazing blows; why do you think most motorcycle riders wear one? Protecting yourself isn't about arming yourself to the teeth, thinking you're Rambo. Protecting yourself is about assessing likely--let me stress this,
likely threats, and equipping yourself with the appropriate tools, whether that's a dose of anti-venom, a bit of low-profile armor over the vitals, or a handgun.
TL;DR - Banning handguns only makes life easier for violent people, and nothing is a substitute for good sense.
