Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarah_W
Armed citizens stop 2.5 million violent crimes every year. It is estimated that half or more saved at least one life. 3.7 million homes are broken into every year. The typical home invasion occurs between 10am and 3 pm. in 1 million of the home invasions the people are home and 270,000 of them become the victim of a violent crime. 46.5% involve weapons, 38.2% involve firearms. That means 1,413,400 home invasions involve an armed intruder. Approximately 1,000 people are murdered each year during a home invasion.
Armed citizens stop a lot of crimes every year and save a lot of lives. If I'm faced with an armed assailant, I want a semi-automatic with an extra magazine.
Never has a person who survived a gun fight complained of having too much ammo and never have they wished for an inferior weapon.
What are the chances you will ever face an armed assailant?
Answer: Not zero.
|
In the unlikely dream world that I talked about where everyone (good guy or bad) had access to only single-shot firearms - then in an armed home invasion both the good and bad person would be equally armed. So, that would be neither a positive for society nor a negative. The REAL POSITIVE benefit to society would be that schools and churches and large gatherings would be MUCH safer because the mass murderer would reload S-L-O-W-L-Y. which would allow bystanders to physically assault and STOP him. So single-shot firearms would be a net big positive for society. I offer this up as just a thought experiment. It is VERY much the same for the decision to prevent most citizens from owning automatic firearms. In this case the LOWER tech the better. This is the same idea that the world leaders use when they want no more nuclear-armed countries. Another case where low-tech is preferable!