Phil DeGraves
Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,531
ANTI-GUN MEANS ANTI-SENIOR AND ANTI-WOMEN
If you are against guns, then you must be against women and seniors.
Consider this. The most common victims of crime are women and the elderly. Why? Because they are the easiest prey. They are physically less equipped to resist. Let’s face it. Most bad guys are pretty short in the courage department. That’s why they look for victims that are easy to intimidate and overpower.
Let’s say that all guns worldwide instantly disappear. Will this reduce the number of women and elderly victims? Will the lack of guns prevent a thug from threatening a woman with a knife so that he can sexually assault her or from clubbing an old man with a metal pipe to steal his money? If we were to magically eliminate all weapons, would that stop a criminally inclined individual from imposing his will on those that are physically weaker than he is?
If we were to make it against the law to possess firearms, would that deter the individual who habitually breaks the law? Would an individual who has already decided to break the laws against rape and robbery actually be expected to not carry a firearm because it’s against the law? Of course not! So who is affected by the ban on firearms?
The intended victim.
The firearm is the equalizer; it allows the weak and feeble the ability to protect themselves from the predator, independent of physical strength.
The decision to own a firearm carries with it a responsibility to learn how to use it and a willingness to use it should the need arise. If you are not willing to use it or willing to learn how to use it, then don’t get one; it will likely be taken away from you and be used against you.
On the other hand, if you do not wish to own a firearm, to take responsibility for your own safety and rely on law enforcement to protect you, that is your choice. But to support restrictive gun laws, to impose your will on others, so that they cannot exercise their choice to protect themselves, well, who’s the thug now?
If you are against guns, then you must be against women and seniors.
Consider this. The most common victims of crime are women and the elderly. Why? Because they are the easiest prey. They are physically less equipped to resist. Let’s face it. Most bad guys are pretty short in the courage department. That’s why they look for victims that are easy to intimidate and overpower.
Let’s say that all guns worldwide instantly disappear. Will this reduce the number of women and elderly victims? Will the lack of guns prevent a thug from threatening a woman with a knife so that he can sexually assault her or from clubbing an old man with a metal pipe to steal his money? If we were to magically eliminate all weapons, would that stop a criminally inclined individual from imposing his will on those that are physically weaker than he is?
If we were to make it against the law to possess firearms, would that deter the individual who habitually breaks the law? Would an individual who has already decided to break the laws against rape and robbery actually be expected to not carry a firearm because it’s against the law? Of course not! So who is affected by the ban on firearms?
The intended victim.
The firearm is the equalizer; it allows the weak and feeble the ability to protect themselves from the predator, independent of physical strength.
The decision to own a firearm carries with it a responsibility to learn how to use it and a willingness to use it should the need arise. If you are not willing to use it or willing to learn how to use it, then don’t get one; it will likely be taken away from you and be used against you.
On the other hand, if you do not wish to own a firearm, to take responsibility for your own safety and rely on law enforcement to protect you, that is your choice. But to support restrictive gun laws, to impose your will on others, so that they cannot exercise their choice to protect themselves, well, who’s the thug now?
