I don't have any problem with what Red is saying. Its pretty much certain that if your house/business is robbed, the criminals are going to grab any and all firearms they can find. Red is just saying that we all need to be a little more proactive. I've known two police officers that went out and got very nice (expensive) gun safes. They told me that: 1. Guns are expensive, and that's why criminals love to steal them; and 2. They don't want to get shot with their own gun a week after its stolen. I don't necessarily agree that it should be required or enforced through insurance companies, but I think its a really good idea to do what you can to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals.
But this argument isn't about what people should do... it's about the role of government and/or insurance companies in making that decision for you.
The thread was about gun control. I think controlling easy access to guns makes more sense than controlling peoples right to own them.
No one is playing the blame game. But you can make a decision that could possibly lead to fewer murders. Yeah, it sucks that it's like that. It absolutely sucks that society has necessitated constant self-protection on the part of the individuals, but it is still the inescapable reality. Being defiant in the face of no desirable alternatives won't cure the problem. You may hate seatbelts worse than anything else in the world. But that won't change the fact that driving a car is the single statistically riskiest act that you carry out everyday (and quite possibly in your entire life). And it won't stop the increasing ignorance of average drivers. The same goes for protecting your firearms. Could you bear the thought of some worthless piece of crap thug running around with YOUR gun? I sure as hell couldn't. I agree. But which do you see happening sooner: Society reforming the criminal mentality and virtually elimintating violent/property crimes, or more folks protecting their firearms from theft? This should definitely not be a mandate handed down by the government. But people should take the responsibility to do it on their own.
i guess another example how it really always comes down to the citizens first which was exemplified in our small towns after the hurricane. The day after you could see 80 and 90 year old men on tractors clearing roads and homes of trees and whatever else it took without waiting on officials to do it. dont get me started on stupid laws requiring seatbelts.
Statistics have shown that due to seatbelt laws, car accident rates have increased substantially... Take from that what you will. The government trying to interfere with my life & make me safer has made me worse off. Shocking? Hardly.
Be careful how you word that. The statistic probably reflects strictly a correlation between seat belt laws and accident rates. However, that indicates no causational relationship. It is almost impossible to assess exactly why accidents happen. Other things have come about since the implementation of seat belt laws, such as the increased usage of cell phones, changes in societal emphasis on promptess, etc. Just because two things happen successively, does not mean that one caused the other. It's the old 'post hoc, ergo proctor hoc' argument that economists use or avoid. Either way, even if seatbelts are somehow causing more accidents, all the more reason to use them. I think it would be a lot easier to prove that they save lives in the event of an accident than that they are causing the accidents.
I don't recall exactly, but it probably is just a correlation. It's more accidents but less deaths. Going with the assumption that seatbelts have caused an increase in accidents... What does that mean to me? I could chose to wear a seatbelt to save my own life, but instead I'm forced to wear it & endure more accidents, actually increasing MY chance of death because I would have chosen to wear it either way.
