Do guns close the "Inequality" gap in an individuals ability to defend from attack?

Asked by: NelsonKnows
  • When a person cannot physically defend themself, a gun can save lives.

    We have an alarming gap in this country. There are many people that lack the physical ability to defend themself from harm at the hands of a stronger individuals, or from an attack by multiple people. We need to make it easier to close this gap and loosening gun control laws is the way to do it.
    We've all heard the anti-gun activists claim that an armed citizenry is more dangerous than an unarmed one. I find this claim to be absurd. They point to heavily biased statistics, and go even further to claim that you can just call the cops.
    In countries like the UK, that don't allow private ownership of firearms, it can take over an hour for "Armed" police to arrive. In the time it takes law enforcement to arrive, you can easily lose your life, or the lives of your family.
    I beleive that being able to legally own a firearm and knowing how to use it is exactly what is needed to close that "gap".

  • Yes they do

    A gun allows a 5 foot 100 pound women to defend her self from a much stronger, 6 foot 180 pound man. With out guns criminals could easily rape, rob and kill people who are weaker, older, younger, smaller or less strong than them. Not allowing women carry guns to defend them selves from rapists is anti women.

  • They create a different kind of inequality.

    When two adversaries have guns, the bigger person or the better fighter no longer has the advantage -- instead, the person who is quickest to the draw has the advantage. Someone who brings a gun into a situation with the expectation to use it naturally has his gun drawn first. Therefore, guns give an advantage to the people who create the need to use them in the first place.

    However, this is not valid support for gun control. There are many reasons, other than "closing the inequality gap", not to take guns away from people.

  • A gun won't help if the attacker is inconspicuous

    Although it is true that carrying a gun can be beneficial at some times, it does not mean that a gun can help all the time. If someone is attempting to harm you, they are not likely to signify that they intend to hurt you until it's too late. By the time you realize they wish to inflict some kind of hardship on you, the attacker is most likely within arms distance of you. This is the most likely scenario because the attacker does not want you (the person being attacked) to flee, for it makes it harder for the attacker to attain what they desire. The attacker may also, if needed, use your gun on you, leaving you in a worse situation than before. The last scenario would be that you somehow manage to pull out the gun, load it, and fire it all before the attacker gets close enough to harm you. In that case, you may kill the person, or mortally wound them, and in my eyes, a person's life is not worth it when you can just run to a safer area. I do not think a gun closes the "gap".

  • No they don't.

    No, guns do not close the inequality gap in individuals. Proper education and training on the right tools, and the know how to use them in the appropriate methods does. The lethal radius of a knife is 20 feet. This standard is used in military and law enforcement training for a reason. Within the 20 foot radius, a person with a knife can kill someone with a handgun before they have time to fire a shot. Having a gun would not give you equal ground to defend yourself. Knowing the safe distance to be in order to make your gun effective would. Education and training is what will close the gap and give a person the means to defend themselves, not a tool they don't know how to use.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.