Quote Originally Posted by reaper239 View Post
i would have to say that what is safest for everyone is what puts everyone on equal footing: freedom. legislation restricts the law abiding, but the criminals violate law with impunity, they don't care, and therefore they have an advantage over the people who follow the law. regarding carry, criminals do where forbidden, law abiding citizens don't. sandy hook was a gun free zone, but that didn't stop the psycho from shooting kids. i'm not saying this to bring anything emotional into the mix, it's a fact: the gun free zone sign didn't give the mass murderer pause for even a second. if there had been law abiding citizens with guns on the scene, they may have been able to stop him, but they followed the law. again, the law restricts only those who would follow it in the first place, not criminals. which is why i hold the position that freedom is the best solution to keep people safe. now this will not save every life, and it will not mean that everyone will exercis this freedom, but everyone will have their fate in their own hands, their protection will be a matter for themselves and no one else, and that will encourage more people to be responsible and protect themselves, and their families, and the innocent people they don't know.
This is one of the biggest issues that I have with the gun debate, "people with guns were there, let me tell you . . . would of been different."

It certainly would have been different. It would have been bloodier, and more lives would have been lost. I know you buy into the idea that because you own a gun you're going to respond to the pressure with logic, and reason. Are you going to shoot him in the leg so that he can stand trial? Or are you going to enforce the death penalty? It's an argument to take the law into your own hands. You argue for the freedom to do so, but you argue against my freedom at the same time. You keep drawing a line of distinction between criminals and "legal" owners. You keep citing that criminals are going to carry no matter what, and you're ignoring the argument that even those who are "legal" present a danger. Dorner is a good example of that. You can keep arguing that "those are criminals" but the fact is they come from all walks of life. The inarguable fact remains: if you don't have a gun, you cannot shoot me with it. That is a far more appealing world than one where everyone may or may not have a gun.