- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
This is going to be, I'm afraid, a fairly controversial thread, and maybe I should not be bringing this up so soon after the Tucson tragedy. But, nevertheless, this needs to be said, so I'm saying it.
It seems that gun sales have doubled in some places in Arizona. In the aftermath of what happened there, I can understand the fear among some that there could be some proposals for restrictions of guns, in the wake of this senseless shooting rampage.
But, IMHO, there is another reason to own guns, and that was aptly demonstrated when a nutcase put 13 persons in the hospital, and 6 more in the ground. So here is the question I want to ask:
Had some of the people at the Giffords event been armed, do you believe the toll would have been less? I believe so, and it is incidents like this that affirm by belief in a strong support of the Second Amendment. An armed population is a safer population.
Some will argue that an armed population leads to incidents, such as happened in Arizona, but I am going to cut that argument off at the pass by stating the obvious - Where it is illegal to own guns, criminals will still get them. I say that law abiding citizens should be able to own them too. After all, this IS part of our Constitutional rights. Once more, I stand solidly behind the premise that an armed population is a safer population. You can't rely on the police to stop incidents like this, but you can sure enough get your hands on a Glock and do it yourself, before calling the police to report that a nutcase with a gun was shot to death before he completed his mission.
Now answer the poll.
Article is here.
Last edited:
