There was this case a few years back which happened in the parking lot of a mall. A car was going against traffic so obviously his way will be blocked by cars going the RIGHT way. The driver of the car going the wrong way got out of his car, approached the other vehicle which was going the right way, and shot the driver dead. Why? Because he got irked off at the other guy for pointing out that he was in the wrong. In other words, he did two wrongs, which didn't make it right. He got convicted, is still in the State Penitentiary, but the poor student in the other car is gone.
Another time, during the yearly pilgrimage to the cemeteries on All Saints' Day, another father was shot and killed by an irate driver because the poor victim was telling him that he was driving the wrong way in the crowded street. Again, though the shooter was convicted and is still serving time, the man's family is suffering still as the breadwinner is gone.
Just two examples of irresponsible owners of guns, who snuffed out innocent people's lives because they pulled the trigger instead of just punching them out.
Pro-gun owners argue that these cases were exceptions rather than the rule. Most gun owners are responsible and know how to handle themselves and their weapons. They stress that most gun owners will not do what those two did.
Most.
What numbers are we talking about? 60 percent can be considered to be "most," which roughly means that 40 people in a hundred will kill someone irresponsibly. 90 percent is definitely most, but it still means 10 people will kill someone for the wrong reasons.
99 percent is probably the limit of most. So, at least one person will kill someone who shouldn't be killed. That's still one victim too many.
Gun owners say they need their guns because there are too many bad elements on the streets. That they have the right to protect themselves against criminals. That they want to be sure that the other person will not be able to harm him because he has his gun.
Golly! We're back to two wrongs being right.
Yes, there are criminals in the streets. That's a fact. That is correct.
What is wrong is the premise that by having guns in the streets, one will be SAFER from these lawless elements. The simple explanation is that guns are not a deterrent to violence. A person carrying a gun has this false impression that he is superior and invincible. That if he flashes his gun, the opponent will back off automatically.
More often than not, he'll be wrong. Maybe, if the person is a professional criminal, yes, you might be able to make him go away as it is bad business to be hurt. But, if the other person is a drug addict or even just another "responsible" gun owner like himself, chances are either he'll panic and shoot it out with you (if the former), or plan to take out his own gun as soon as the other turns away THEN have the shoot out (if he's the wise gun owner that he's purported to be).
If we ban ALL guns from the streets, then ANYONE with a gun is automatically a criminal, and should be punished right away. This will deter criminals from bringing guns as it would be more difficult to transport them. Road rage will not become shooting incidents. They would remain mano y mano contests of manhood and may the better man leave with less lumps.
I remember the early Martial Law days where you can walk the streets safely because NOBODY could carry any sort of weapon. No guns, knives, bolos, nothing. If you're unlucky enough to get caught, you're automatically brought to jail and left to rot. I am not condoning Martial Law. Just the ideal state of the streets at that time.
I believe in the right to protect a life. I also believe it is important to have a gun to help protect you and your family. But these should be kept in your home as this is the most important place that you're supposed to protect. Your home is your castle and you should protect it and everyone inside it however you want. Outside your home is a different story. There are too many civilians around. Too many innocent bystanders who could get hurt.
Remember the two shooters I talked about earlier? The first made some good business while INSIDE the penitentiary, while the other is eligible for parole in about 10 years.
Why do I feel like some people get to have their cake and eat it too?
