When asked directly, a leftist will admit that guns don't fire themselves and don't turn a peaceful person into a violent gunman. But their arguments only make sense if you assume they actually do think those things.
So break it a down. An armed citizen is no more dangerous to any other person than an unarmed citizen unless he is one of the following: mentally unstable, stupidly negligent, or murderously violent.
A mentally stable person is no more likely to randomly draw their gun and start shooting than they are to suddenly drive their car onto the sidewalk and mow down a row of pedestrians. Do you walk on the sidewalk in constant fear that drivers will suffer a mental break and hop the curb to kill you? No? Then you're not actually worried about sudden bouts of mental instability, you just don't like guns.
A person exercising reasonable care in his actions in not appreciably more likely to randomly harm someone with his weapon than he is without. Modern weapons are very safe. Simply following the three rules and/ or keeping the weapon holstered renders it effectively harmless. Again, do you walk down the sidewalk in constant fear that a driver will experience a moment of negligence, hop the curb, and kill you? No? Then you're not actually worried about negligent homicide, you just don't like guns.
A person who is not murderously violent is no more likely to kill unprovoked with his weapon than without it. On the other hand, a murderously violent person is going to have a history long before they are old enough to legally own weapons. They may very well own a car. Do you worry that someone is going to steal a car, hop the curb, and run you down on the sidewalk? No? Then you're not worried about murderously violent people, you just don't like guns.
On the other hand, an armed citizen is well equipped to stop a truck of peace, or deescalate a fight, effect a citizen's arrest, deter burglary, and put the crazies down before they can do any damage (whether that's with guns or trucks, IEDs, knives, gas, or any other weapon). So we know that an armed citizen is not any more dangerous to someone than an unarmed one in almost all circumstances, while they can be extraordinarily helpful not just in emergencies, but in creating an environment that deters violent actors from creating emergencies.
The only reason to stop all this is because you don't like guns. And the great irony here is that if we pro-gun people didn't have to stop the constant incrementalist anti-gun legislation, we could actually do something about sticky problems like mentally ill relatives and roommates of lawful gun owners or people with mental problems that don't necessarily indicate a likely violent outburst. But we can't, or the leftists will use that as a springboard to enact a bunch of other bans and restrictions.
Attached: 1526191269267.png (698x566, 579.16K)