Wow. That is exceptionally flawed logic. Just because in your area and in your experience, something has not happened or does not happen does not in any way mean that it does not happen. Have you lived through a bloody revolution? No? Some have. Have you ever climbed the ladders to the top of the power structure? No? Some have. Have you ever had a robber break into your house with a gun? No? Some have. Laws are in large part set up to cover any and all possibilities. The laws concerning firearms is one of the foremost of these laws. It is an exceptionally blind point of view to take believeing that something does not happen just because one has not experienced it. Suppose death cannot occur.
how is my logic flawed, you asked What if they have a gun? and i explaned how unlikely that would be. i have not lived in any other countries so i cant say how it is other plases, can you?
From what I understand, you are against gun ownership on the grounds that criminals wouldn't have any. My argument was that just because it is unlikely does not mean that it cannot happen or does not happen. Laws are, as I stated before, partially set up 'in the event of'. By basing the setup of the law on the assumption that something won't happen you would place all those in areas where there is high likelyhood of such crime occuring at risk. It doesn't take alot of work to look at statistics of gun violence in other countries. Believe it or not, even countries that have banned personal ownership of guns for the common citizen still have gun crimes. If an individual is determined to commit a crime, what better weapon to use than a gun?
Why the hell would you want to get that close to him? That's retarded. Pepper spray is short ranged, but it's far enough to be out of tackling range. If you get that close, the criminal in question is probably going to just pull his own knife, or in the case of a kid like you, just disarm you and beat the shit out of you. You'd be better off getting the hell out of there.
