Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
Include me in those agreeing with Drolefille.
I failed to respond to this earlier, but I feel like I need to. While i respect, and to some degree, agree with the sentiment behind this, I think this statement is somewhat naive. The desire that everyone take responsibility for his or her own safety or the safety of another is predicated on the assumption that the average person will act responsibly when in a sudden, stressful situation. While I certainly assume that everyone would intend to act responsibly, my life experience leads me to believe that intention (or training for a CHL) isn't enough. The person who can act calmly and responsibly in a situation like this is, I think, the exception rather than the rule, as much as we'd all like to think we'd perform well under pressure. And I think that's especially the case in this context -- college students. That's one reason I find the "if there had only been someone with a gun at Virginia Tech" argument unpersuasive.
|
Additionally placing the "duty" for safety in the hands of the victim actually blames the victim for not somehow being prepared enough. If only you'd had a gun you wouldn't have been raped. If only you'd had a gun your house wouldn't have been burglarized. If only you'd had a gun your child would be alive today. Anything that takes responsibility off of the person who commits the crime, and places it on victims of crime is misguided at best and harmful or destructive at worst. Victims already attempt to blame themselves.
As a society we have chosen to have organized police forces to handle matters of safety. Although those forces have flaws, the principle is that they are neutral and that they are highly trained. Argue that the reality does not reflect the principle, but this is the "why" we have police and not vigilante justice.
When it comes down to constitutional rights, I believe my understanding of the 2nd amendment is that it is really reflective of the ideals that a government should not be able to subjugate its people by the simple fact that they have all of the weapons. Ignoring the militia arguments for the moment, this could certainly allow for people to have weapons in their home, but does not, in my opinion, equate to the ability or right to carry weapons on their person at all times.