District of Columbia

[jonno99]

15. A couple of thoughts:

- By definition, criminals do announce themselves. When they commit a crime they have engaged in a criminal act.
- Similarly (imo), the mental ill should be "controlled" from owning a firearm when, by credible word or deed (an act) they threaten violence.

Your statement:
"Allowing everyone to walk around with a gun simply increases the possibility that a gun will be used."

Well, of course. But you seem to presuppose that every use of those firearms would be a bad thing. The law enforcement officer, the diminutive women (or man) faced with a violent criminal or two, is at an extreme disadvantage if the confrontation is "mano-e-mano" - with physical strength/skill as the only arbiter.

Now you will make the argument that seemingly minor conflicts can result in death if firearms are present. That is true; but tell the rape victim, or the victim of a violent home invasion that society - as a whole - is better off because they were not allowed to defend themselves. It will give them little solace.

The bottom line is that gun 'control' measures (GCM) are a panacea - they make some of us "feel good" - that we're "doing something" about violence and crime.

The fact is though, that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible. Concealed-carry license holders as a group have lower incidence of crime than do the police (though that might not mean much to some folks). GCM adversely affect the law-abiding and especially the weak - seldom the actual criminals...