which is stupid. Remember if it SAVES JUST ONE INNOCENT LIFE
and since every police department has found that more than 7 is NEEDED, who are you to say otherwise? and don't give me the crap that police are more likely than other citizens to confront violent criminals-most cops do not.
YOUR failure is that you cannot show any reason why a person should be prohibited from having a 10-15-20 shot pistol if they have already been legally cleared to carry such a weapon in public
Say in a Glock, that could be up to 51 rounds on tap if running a 9mm with 17 round mags. Plus one in the chamber gives 52.
Now why should an officer, be able to have 52 on hand and me or anyone else be limited?
If the burglar is carrying a gun then it's likely that somebody could be shot dead. I would suggest that's just as likely to be the home owner or one of his family as it is that the burglar is shot.
In an instance where guns or 'a' gun is involved then the fight for your life that you suggest is more likely to end in someone's death than it would be without guns involved. Statistically that is a proven fact. But it's certainly not proven fact that a home owner would be in a fight for his/her life if he run up against a burglar in his home, regardless of the time of day or night.
And then, everything I say is again proven by the statistics of a comparison between Canada's gun violence and that in your country.
Perhaps one thing we can agree upon is that it's not a desirable end result to have a home burglar shot dead by a home owner. I completely understand the emotion behind it all but I think that one of the first tasks is to try to rise above the emotion. A burglar, who could be a juvenile in many cases can be successfully reformed by a caring system and go on to live a very productive life.
Let's try to work on that for a beginning. Not confused ideas of citizens becoming victims judged on whether they have a gun handy to protect themselves.
3.7 million burglaries occur each year in the United States.
At least one household member was present during 1 million of them and became victims of violent crime in 266,000 of them. 9% of this violence is classified as "serious." That's just under 26,000 victims of serious violence each year during home invasions.
Are these stats insignificant? I guess it depends upon whether one is included in them. Protecting one's home falls on the people who live there. Not the neighbors. Not the coppers. "When seconds count, the cops are minutes away."
Just what do you think you're arguing now? Could it be that you consider that getting the best of a burglar is more important than getting shot dead or having a loved one shot dead? Or even that preserving your owning precious articles of jewelry is more important than the lives of your loved ones?
Funny you should mention that, because I had no idea what point you were trying to make in the post I responded to. Now, however, you've made your point very clear. You've somehow arrived at the conclusion that, because I have a gun in my home, I am interested in protecting personal property. I have absolutely no idea how you arrived at that conclusion.Just what do you think you're arguing now? Could it be that you consider that getting the best of a burglar is more important than getting shot dead or having a loved one shot dead? Or even that preserving your owning precious articles of jewelry is more important than the lives of your loved ones?
I couldn't care less about my personal property. Besides their being "mere things," I have plenty of insurance for that eventuality. What I most certainly do value is my life and the lives of my loved ones.
But, as someone famous once said, "Let me make this perfectly clear." If an intruder breaks into my home in the middle of the night and I can access my gun before he "accesses me or mine," I won't be asking if he's armed. I won't be asking if his intention is just to rob my house. And I won't be asking him to freeze. I'll be blowing his ass away.