headvoid said:
And if he had a gun? Would that be before or after they have "proved themselves unworthy of that trust"???
What would you rather have, a gun wielding nigger or a knife wielding nigger?
And now we get to the crux of the issue, headvoid. I'd rather have a gun-wielding nigger.
You don't prohibit everyone from breathing just because someone might get a cold and transmit it. You don't prohibit everyone from having sex, just because someone might transmit HIV. You don't prohibit people from drinking because they might drive a car and cause an accident. Likewise, you don't prohibit people from driving a car because they might have a drink and cause an accident.
You don't prohibit people from owning a weapon of any sort (knife, gun, brass knuckle, bo staff, sword, etc) just because they might do something that's
already illegal with it. The criminal act is what is illegal, and that is what they should be punished for. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Just like black people are black people until they have proven themselves to be niggers. White people are white people until they have proven themselves to be white trash or rednecks, etc.
So to answer your question, until we are capable of predicting the future and determining who will commit a crime before they do it, yes, we let everyone have weapons. If and when they misuse them, they are punished for it within the constraints of the law.
Again, yes, you let the man own a gun until he cracks and shoots people. Then, you throw him in jail (assuming he isn't shot by all of the
other armed citizens around him) and take his weapons away.
Statistics have shown that violent crime rates drop when criminals fear a response from an armed citizen. Criminals don't fear the police, unless the police are there at the scene of the crime. Since most criminals aren't completely stupid, they wait until the police are gone to commit crimes. However, if every single citizen in the area is potentially armed, criminals will think twice about committing any sort of crime. When a criminal's potential victims have the right to defend their lives and property and are willing to do so, they are the criminal's newfound fear.
It's a very simple and logical argument.
If you're a killer or a robber and you know that all weapons are illegal and that all of the good law-abiding citizens do not have weapons at hand and the police are at least 3 minutes response time away from you, are you going to think twice about using one of your illegally obtained black-market weapons to kill or rob?
Converseley if yo're a killer or robber and you know that every one of your potential victims
might have a weapon and be proficient at using it, are you going to think twice about using your illegally (or
possibly legally) obtained weapon to kill or rob?
If you can answer those two questions honestly, there is no need to discuss it further because you will come to the conclusion that an armed populace is preferable to a disarmed populace.