Guns are manufactured to kill things. There is no need for anybody to own one unless they want to kill something.
This may be a true statement at its heart. However, lets change the object to something else, like fire. Fire's sole purpose if to charr and burn. There is no need for anyone to own fire unless you want to burn something. Fire has been used as a method of torture and warfare for centuries before the advent of gunpowder, much less firearms. Why don't we do more to regulate and control the use of fire. In my own neighborhood, uncontrolled fire has caused millions of dollars in damage, left hundreds homeless, and scorched the earth and ruined the environment for my children and their children. It is an evil object that will require decades of work to erase.
That's what I mean...If the bad guy has a gun, then you want to have a bigger gun....making you no better then he is...
The invention of the "gun" is probably single worst invention known to mankind.
If you can list one positive thing that has come out of the invention of the "gun" please post them....
( I mean gun in gereral with all types of weapons)
I wouldn't say that I need to have a bigger gun. In many cases, the simple presence of a gun, even a smaller gun, tends to convince aggressive, criminal intent minds to vacate their threat.
As far as a bad invention, see the fire reference previous. Why do you need fire unless it is to burn? The flaw in that reasoning is that the reasonable use of fire has demonstrated many benefits such as warm shelters, cooked food, and a host of other benefits from reasonable usage. Firearms are the same. They have been used to defend loved ones against malicious minded persons, to put food on the table, as entertainment in shooting sports, even to secure the liberty for you to complain about their presence. The gun, as an item, is no more or less evil than an Ouji board.
Some positive things that have come from private gun ownership... well, lets look at the event that has spawned this topic, mass shootings. There are any number of invetigations into mass shooters that have shown that in incidents where police response to the shooter was the sole method of response that the death toll averages 14 persons per incident. A big part of the reason for this is because police typically cannot get to the scene for 5 minutes or more, and that is if the jurisdiction has an excellent repsonse record. In many cases, it is even longer. In similar circumstances where an armed citizen was available to immedialty confront the shooter, the death toll averages 2.5. If you are person number 3 in that scenario, are you willing to wait for police response and hope they get there in time, or would you prefer that someone ahead of you has a concealed carry permit and was willing to meet force with force?
Mutually assured destruction worked as a global detterent to nuclear war for the better half of the last century. Think of firearm ownership in a similar vein, only on a much more personal level.
