> Guns are a force multiplier, they allow someone that is armed to have much greater lethality than someone that is not.
So is a van, see Europe.
> Guns are a force multiplier, they allow someone that is armed to have much greater lethality than someone that is not.
Tell that to wild hogs. Population control is a thing, especially needed for invasive boar.
> and they have obvious use in military activities.
Exactly, 2A is for a well regulated militia. It's to protect the rest of your rights. We'd still be under the crown and possibly still in the slave trade if not for guns. (GB and other powers did not end it first, they simply outsourced it to America)
> There are occasional times where someone armed has been able to use those arms in self-defense, but the use of deadly weapons as opposed to self-defense or incapacitating weapons is not an adequate reason to outweigh the disadvantages of these weapons being generally available.
There are many instances where civilians are able to defend themselves or others. Guns are equalizers for weaker humans against stronger ones, they are also deterrents. Gun crimes usually happen in strict gun controlled areas because criminals know it's unlikely they will be met with force.
I carry every day just in case, both for animals and humans. Criminals will not respect your gun laws, you are only hurting law abiding citizens.
edit: to below, you'd have to look at it by city, not state. most gun violence is driven by gang/cartel violence, which exists largely in certain key cities of a certain political spectrum that happen to have strict gun laws.
Seems like the opposite is true. States with easier gun laws have far more gun deaths. It does not seem like guns prevent crime really. If that was the case, then states with the most guns would have the least gun deaths, no?
So is a van, see Europe.
> Guns are a force multiplier, they allow someone that is armed to have much greater lethality than someone that is not.
Tell that to wild hogs. Population control is a thing, especially needed for invasive boar.
> and they have obvious use in military activities.
Exactly, 2A is for a well regulated militia. It's to protect the rest of your rights. We'd still be under the crown and possibly still in the slave trade if not for guns. (GB and other powers did not end it first, they simply outsourced it to America)
> There are occasional times where someone armed has been able to use those arms in self-defense, but the use of deadly weapons as opposed to self-defense or incapacitating weapons is not an adequate reason to outweigh the disadvantages of these weapons being generally available.
There are many instances where civilians are able to defend themselves or others. Guns are equalizers for weaker humans against stronger ones, they are also deterrents. Gun crimes usually happen in strict gun controlled areas because criminals know it's unlikely they will be met with force.
I carry every day just in case, both for animals and humans. Criminals will not respect your gun laws, you are only hurting law abiding citizens.
edit: to below, you'd have to look at it by city, not state. most gun violence is driven by gang/cartel violence, which exists largely in certain key cities of a certain political spectrum that happen to have strict gun laws.