People look at the debate on guns as a fight over the physical ownership of them. A good article I just read looks at it from the self defense side of the argument.
Seven years ago, I came face to face with a masked man in an alley as I left work. He had a gun and a desire to do me no good! What if the gun control advocates had their way? How would I have fared that night? Considering that, I was cornered and unable to flee, or face my assailant on equal terms I might not be writing this at all. I might very well be a statistic.A good reason to not only carry, but carry without having to ask the governments permission to carry.
Fortunately, for me the laws in Texas DO allow its residents to be armed. I was able, although cornered to have an equal footing. Because I was armed, and prepared, my attacker decided that his intentions were not worth dealing with my Colt.45. One criminal running away and one innocent, law-abiding citizen safe seems like a pretty good end does it not.
Not according to gun control advocates. According to their desires, I should have been forced to run instead of facing down the miscreant criminal. Got that? If you are minding your own business and are assaulted or threatened by a violent criminal the gin control crowd wants the onus to be on you to flee, or retreat, or do anything EXCEPT stand your ground with a firearm.
How morally and intellectually backwards can these folks be to adopt such an indefensible position? The duty and perfect right of a law-abiding citizen is to defend themselves with deadly force if need be against criminals. That is the essence of the disagreement between the opposing sides on gun control.
I will not run.