Reply #522: Banning guns would ENSURE that the dead guy was the good guy ... [View All]

I don't know the dead guy in the picture -- maybe he was a good guy, maybe he was a criminal. Banning guns wouldn't prevent his death, it would only ensure that the dead guy pictured would be the good guy instead of the bad guy.

I don't know the guy in the picture -- maybe he deserved to get shot, maybe not. Maybe he was shot by a law-abiding gun owner. If he broke into my house and/or threatened my family, I wouldn't be afraid of what my handgun could do (though HE should), I'd be appreciative. Maybe the death of that man saved innocent lives.

But, maybe not. Maybe he got shot by a thug who couldn't care less if you ban guns or not. Maybe he'd still be alive if he owned and carried a handgun ... maybe the shooter/thug would be dead instead.

Maybe he accidentally shot himself ... maybe he'd still be alive if he'd been properly trained to use a gun without blowing his own head off. Maybe he intentionally shot himself, in which case I wouldn't be any more afraid of the gun than I would of the noose, knife, or carbon monoxide. There are LOTS of ways to kill yourself.

Ultimately, a gun is simply a tool. It is trite -- but truly the case the guns don't kill people, people do. Guns can be a tool of destruction or salvation. It can be a tool of tyranny or protection. It can be one of many tools of suicide or murder, and one of a few effective tools of self-defense.

However, laws banning guns don't prevent tyranny, destruction or murder ... they only prevent protection, salvation and self-defense. Keeping guns out of the hands of the good guys means only those who couldn't care less about the law will be armed.

Ultimately, banning guns will ENSURE that the guy in the picture was the law abiding one rather than the criminal aggressor. Allowing good guys to carry at least evens the odds that the right guy will get shot.

KBZ