Anti-gun advocates insist that guns take lives, but don’t gun also save innocent lives? The fresh case in Gresham, OR, speaks in favor of gun ownership.
Fox12 reports that four men –ranging in age from 16 to 25 – broke into a mobile home and attacked the inhabitant inside with knives. The victim grabbed a gun and shot at them, killing one and wounding another. The invaders are reportedly all Hispanic males.
What the Gresham mobile home inhabitant did adds force to the reason of keeping guns for personal safety and the safety one’s family and/or property. It would have been too late if he had called police and waited for them while the four armed intruders who were there to stab and rob him.
This is a catch 22. Why should the US need to operate laws different from the EU countries? We can get satellite protection like in London used by Scottland yard. Alert signals should be more effective. We must learn to protect ourselves without guns. If they are made illegal only criminals will have them, and that makes the justice system more responsible and more effective. It will take time to build a system without guns because every state will have to comply. To have guns means more guns and a system fighting against its own system.
The catch in making them illegal is that if the criminals can still get them – and many believe they will – then it leaves the non-criminals or law-abiding civilians defenseless. They will be robbed and murdered easily by those who get the guns illegally. That is the big weakness in the argument of the anti-gun advocates – as evident in this story of the Gresham man.