The only way a weaking can survive in this scenario

[Senju Bean]

The Mountain( Ser Gregor Clegane) from Game of Thrones breaks down the door and attempts to attack an old lady.

The only way for the old lady to survive, is to shoot the mountain with a gun.

Even if The Mountain had a gun, the old lady has a much better chance of winning a gun dual than a sword fight.


Sure, guns raise the overall homicide rate, but since it protects the weaklings, it's worth it. It's all about protecting the weaklings, above everything else.

This scenario with what policy should be based off of.

 

[Nobel]

what did i just read

 

[Senju Bean]

what did i just read

Weaklings can still win a gun dual. Even, if they have no training, they still have at least a 30% chance of winning.

But in a fist fight, the weakling only has a 1% chance at most.

 

[UltraPain]

The Mountain( Ser Gregor Clegane) from Game of Thrones breaks down the door and attempts to attack an old lady.

The only way for the old lady to survive, is to shoot the mountain with a gun.

Even if The Mountain had a gun, the old lady has a much better chance of winning a gun dual than a sword fight.


Sure, guns raise the overall homicide rate, but since it protects the weaklings, it's worth it. It's all about protecting the weaklings, above everything else.

This scenario with what policy should be based off of.

You must be registered for see images

 

[Senju Bean]

Giving weaklings a more even playing field is worth increasing the rate at which gang bangers whack each other.

Increasing gang violence only pushes the risk onto gang bangers themselves. But it's worth it. For they arent' the ones worth protecting anyways.

 

[j1388686]

Giving weaklings a more even playing field is worth increasing the rate at which gang bangers whack each other.

Increasing gang violence only pushes the risk onto gang bangers themselves. But it's worth it. For they arent' the ones worth protecting anyways.

Why do you assume they only "whack" each other? They use guns to rob people, to murder their enemies (not only gang members, informants, police etc) and use guns to protect their own product and themselves.
By saying they aren't worth protecting is very ignorant. Some of these kids didn't decide to join, or did decide but have no option to get out of a gang without themselves getting killed or seriously injured (see: informant)

Also, by insinuating that if you own a gun, you are a weakling is also a pretty bold statement.
Can you fight a bear off with your bare hands? Guns are used for more than just crime and killing people you know.

 

[Senju Bean]

Why do you assume they only "whack" each other? They use guns to rob people, to murder their enemies (not only gang members, informants, police etc) and use guns to protect their own product and themselves.
By saying they aren't worth protecting is very ignorant. Some of these kids didn't decide to join, or did decide but have no option to get out of a gang without themselves getting killed or seriously injured (see: informant)

Also, by insinuating that if you own a gun, you are a weakling is also a pretty bold statement.
Can you fight a bear off with your bare hands? Guns are used for more than just crime and killing people you know.

No , im not saying that only weaklings can own guns. I'm just saying that the most important thing is to even the playing ground for those that normally can't defend themselves. That is what is important above everything else.



Also, even if what you assumed was true, that the gang members would whack others, I'll respond with this:

It's better for a grandmother to face 100 murderous armed robbers in her old age if she has a gun, than to not have a gun and to fight a big thug trying to strangle her.

At least in the first scenario, she has a small chance, in the second scenario, she has none whatsoever.

 

[The Necromancer]

This is assuming that every old lady is waiting behind every door with a gun in every situation, 100% of the time.

Which is never the case. Ever.

 

[Senju Bean]

This is assuming that every old lady is waiting behind every door with a gun in every situation, 100% of the time.

Which is never the case. Ever.

No I'm not.

As long as some are. Thats all that matters.

 

[Senju Bean]

btw, if the old lady doesn't have a gun with her while the assailant breaks in, then it doesn't matter wether the assailant has a gun or not, she's dead anyways.

But if she's allowed to have a gun, then sometimes, it will be within reach if they break in, sometimes, she will be able to defend herself.

Sometimes is better than no times.

 

[TheUnbiasedOne]

Let's do it this way

Weak Man VS Strong Man no guns
A) Someone is severely beaten but possibly saved
B) Cops come before serious injury develops
C) Aggressor is restrained

Weak Man with Gun VS Strong Man without
A) Goes powercrazy and shoots a school down an hour prior
B) Shoots Strong Man who will need immediate attention
C) Holds Man at Gunpoint, Possibly losing the gun or accidentally shooting

Two Men With Guns
Someone gets shot because each are under the pressure of wielding and being threatened with lethal weapons.

Carry a Taser, Pen Knife, and Pepper Spray, instead of lobbying for murder weapons.

 

[Panthalassa]

The Mountain( Ser Gregor Clegane) from Game of Thrones breaks down the door and attempts to attack an old lady.

The only way for the old lady to survive, is to shoot the mountain with a gun.

Even if The Mountain had a gun, the old lady has a much better chance of winning a gun dual than a sword fight.


Sure, guns raise the overall homicide rate, but since it protects the weaklings, it's worth it. It's all about protecting the weaklings, above everything else.

This scenario with what policy should be based off of.

Well, first of all, a Taser or Pepper Spray would be equally efficient in dealing with the Mountain long enough for the weak old woman to look for assistance. That's the thing about the situation, law isn't supposed to be enforced by the people, it should be enforced by the police, highly trained individuals (supposedly).