|
I'm trying to be open-minded here but I'm not getting any help. An incident was cited as showing the value of being armed. If that's not the purpose for citing it, fine, it's just an interesting story. But if it is cited as an example of the positive value of being armed, I think we aren't really learing anything if we don't consider the possibilities.
One of the posts here indicated that firearms are needed because there are evil people in the world. I certainly agree that there are evil people in this world. My question is whether the result would have been different if the perp was really evil, with no regard for human life. Would having a weapon under those circumstances have assured the best outcome? Isn't it also possible that if the perp had no regard for life, he would have seen the weapon as a threat and eliminated the threat instead of running?
Under the circumstances given, the possession of a gun prevented a property loss. Had the makeup of the perp been different, would it have prevented or caused a loss of life? If that's not a legitimate question, tell me why not.
Regards,
D-Ray
__________________
Then I'll get on my knees and pray,
We won't get fooled again; Don't get fooled again
|