Here's my 2 cents. When people ask me why I carry a gun at all times, my standard response is "Because a cop is too heavy." If I'm in a situation like being robbed, I'm not going to take a chance on a cop who's minutes away in a situation that will be over in mere seconds. Especially where I live. The cops are spread so thin that you will be waiting a while. Shit's too crazy nowadays, and I'd rather have one and not need it than to need it and not have it. And you gotta love the lifetime permits. Regardless of the laws, criminals will always have guns, bar none.
And don't think Uncle Scam won't take them either. They already did in New Orleans during Katrina. It sure was nice of the gubmint to leave all those homeowners defenseless against looters.
Come on Phister, if the brady campaign had their way, that criminal would only have a 10 round clip while you wouldn't have a gun at all on your person, and when they tried to rob you you'd be duty bound to retreat, and he'd only have 10 bullets to try and shoot you with as you were fleeing, until he reloaded the next magazine in 1 to 2 seconds, putting you about 10 to 20 more feet away calling 911 for police assistance who aren't duty bound to protect you (see Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278).
You don't think you really need a firearm to protect yourself do you? ;-)
I don't look at it as having power, more of a sense of security. It's not something that I get belligerent about, but it at least gives me a fighting chance. If you just want to let someone rob you, then that's your choice. I'm going to protect myself and people I care about. You think the cops will do any good trying to find him? They can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground.
If I die trying to protect myself or my property from a violent crime then so be it. Why is it ok to tell me I can't have a firearm because I have a higher statistic of dieing due to having that firearm? Is your assertion is that because I have a higher chance of dieing by having a firearm, which I realize is true, means that I shouldn't be allowed to have it? If so, why does this not apply to life in general? We should certainly get rid of motorcycles then. They are nothing but death machines compared to cars. Same with smoking, let's make it illegal. Of course I don't really believe those last two, but it's not a stretch with the logic you are proposing. Who are you to tell people what risks they can or can't take? Better yet, who are you to tell government to use force to tell others what risks they can and can't take?
If someone is willing to take the extra risk of firearm ownership, then why should we stop them?
Like I said, I was simply wanting to understand how you explain taking the extra risk. I don't have any official stand on 'gun' control, it's one of those rare issues where I don't believe me! hehe :)
But lets ponder on additional question, your putting your life at stake by 'gun' ownership... one who smokes cigarettes trades the risk to life for a sense of enjoyment, as does a motorcyclist, so it's at its essence hedonism in exchange for risk. Now if you're dead, you didn't achieve protection, so what exactly is it that you're exchanging death for, it's not hedonism that for sure...
Two convenience store operators (or fathers) on same street, side by side, have robbery
-one that defended with gun is dead, and robbed, and family fatherless
-one that did not escalate is robbed, alive, and still a father.
For your family, which one do you chose?