"Robert Green" wrote in message ...


Ask any cop if they *really* want to deal with armed citizens operating in
vigilante mode on their beat and the answer will be a resounding "NO WAY!"

Was that the position? Or was it that law-abiding citizens have a right to
be armed for those situations where the police aren't there to defend them
against criminals?

Stir in thousands of armed private citizens and the results are
predictable: more innocent people will be shot.

In which case you should be able to point to credible documentation that
states which go to a shall-issue system for concealed weapon permits see a
resulting spike in gun violence. Can you do that?

That's not to say I favor
elimination of guns, but I really don't want any Tom, Dick or Harry with a
.44 magnum street cannon firing away at suspected criminals in my
neighborhood.

You're imposing a vigilante scenario that doesn't fit the circumstances of
most defensive use of firearms. I know two people who protected themselves
with a firearm in the face of a violent criminal. One didn't have to fire a
shot, the sight of his gun was enough. The other fired a warning shot which
convinced the guy she wasn't the helpless victim he was looking for. And if
you read up on the defensive use of guns you'll find it usually happens in
the shooter's home or place of business when the criminal came to them, so a
depiction of armed citizens roaming the streets looking for trouble is
colorful but unrealistic.