Well, we can all probably agree that the US does have bad crime rates, and I wouldn't argue that point. However, I don't think guns are to blame for it.
I wouldn't say we all expect violence, per se. It's not like we're huddled in corners with loaded shotguns and a trigger-finger. But the thing is, there
are criminals out here, a sad but true reality, and people prefer to be able to defend themselves should, heaven forbid, they ever be the victim heard about in the news.
One important thing to keep in mind though, is just because people have guns don't mean they *have* to use them. Nor does it mean they're going to whip the things out every time someone bumps into them on the road.
Think of it like planning to steal the wallet from a black-belt in karate. You'd probably think against it. Why? Because he's a black-belt in karate, he'd probably kick your booty before you got close to his wallet. So, you change your mind. Did he ever actually have to whip out his karate skills or do any butt kicking? Nah. And guns are kind of like that, too. I honestly can think of very few instances where someone had to actually *use* a concealed and carried gun in self-defence, because most criminals know better to mess with that. Except those psychotic dudes that go in malls with automatics and just start blasting everyone before killing themselves.. and in those cases, I doubt many would argue much about people being able to defend themselves against *that*.
But, I think people not used to guns are going to be startled by the concept, especially if they have the impression that there's people that shoot other people for looking at them funny on a daily basis or something. Probably the same way that reserved people in the US are going to say that nude beaches are amoral and awful places of lust and indulgence that should never exist, while places that have them will probably be like "wtf mate, it's not like it's an ocean-wide orgy out there all the time."
So, I'll just say this. Just because a gun can kill someone, doesn't mean blood must be spilled (you can kill people with pencils too, you know). Just because a gun can be a weapon, doesn't mean you have to use one that way (you know those yo-yos people play with as toys? They resemble weapons used by people of the Philippines some years ago). Just because some people use objects for evil purposes doesn't mean that everyone does (Think of the history of crimes with knives. Yet nearly every household will have one as an eating utensil).
A thought about "Would I shoot a robber or give him what he wants"
I would definitely hand over my money and let him run.
Yes. Of course you would. Anyone would. But like I already said, there's times when money is not the only thing, or even the thing at all, that the criminal wants. Maybe he wants sexual relief. Maybe he gets pleasure from hurting people. Maybe he wants to hurt you to make sure you won't chase after him or call for help afterwards. Maybe he doesn't even want anything from you, and simply wants to teach you a lesson for trespassing on gang turf. Would you still keep the "do what you want and run" philosophy in that case? No, I doubt it.
Keep in mind that simple money robberies aren't the only crimes that go on out here. And I'm sorry, I'd rather shoot someone that wanted to rape me or slit my throat or slam a knife into my stomach to make sure I don't scream for help than endure such an experience. And who said I had to
kill him? Shooting someone in the leg or arm can often be enough to disable them. There's no need to go for the kill unless absolutely necessary (as in, my well-being
will be harmed if I don't).
Perhaps there's people that are willing to take that risk for the sake of not hurting the perpetrator. And in that case, all I can say is: to each his own.
But I think the same principles apply here. Take Sir Peter Blake,who was shot on his yacht because he started to shoot at the guys who wanted his watch. As an amateur with a gun under the bed, one always isin a disadvantage, even if one is willing to shoot someone over a watch. Or to get shot oneself, that is.
No, the same principles don't apply, since you have to pass a test to carry a gun, which includes knowing how to hold, load, and clean the gun, how to use it responsibly, where you can or can't take it, and also you're required to pass an accuracy test in a firing range.
Also, looking into this:
On 6 December 2001, pirates shot and killed Blake while he was on an environmental exploration trip in South America, monitoring global warming and pollution for the United Nations. The two-month expedition was anchored off Macapá, Brazil, at the mouth of the Amazon delta, waiting to clear customs after a trip up the Amazon river. At around 9 pm a group of six to eight armed, masked robbers wearing balaclavas and crash helmets boarded the Seamaster. As one of the robbers held a gun to the head of a crewmember, Blake sprang from the cabin wielding a rifle used to ward off polar bears. He shot one of the assailants in the hand before the rifle malfunctioned; he was then fatally shot in the back by assailant Ricardo Colares Tavares. The boarders injured two other crew members with knives, and the remaining seven were unhurt.
The only booty the attackers seized from Seamaster was a 15 hp outboard motor and some watches from the crew.
Notable differences:
1. That was a hunting rifle of sorts, not a conceal and carry gun. He would have needed a hunting license or whatever, not a conceal and carry permit (have fun trying to hide a rifle on your person, anyway).
2. It's hard to say whether the gun specifically belonged to him in the first place (as it would with a conceal and carry permit), or if it was simply a general item taken on the trip and he happened to be the only one to be able to get to it.
3. According to the article, the fault wasn't that he was an amateur with the gun, but rather than the gun malfunctioned.
4. If the gun wasn't even his in the first place, and he really was unexperienced, then that's actually a point
against your argument, seeing how people have to pass the conceal and carry test before being able to actually use one.
So, I say that comparing an environmental explorer using a gun for a critical emergency that it wasn't even designed for is a pretty strained comparsion of people who are tested and authorized to use a personal firearm for the specific purpose of self-defence.
