DOES MIGHT MAKE RIGHT?

This is a good question. Clearly, The Gun Lobby thinks so, since they spend millions ensuring that no one has their guns taken away, not that that is what any of us are actually talking about doing anyway, but that is beside the current point. But they argue that since criminals can get military grade weapons to do break ins, civilians should be allowed to have military grade weapons to defend themselves and their homes. So, whoever has the biggest gun always wins, right? Let's think about that. In THE BIBLE, in the first book of Samuel, Goliath was a giant who was armed to the teeth with steel armor and weapons, while David was a boy with a sling shot. So, obviously, Goliath crushed David with a single blow. No, wait, that's not right. Oh, yeah, David's stone hit Goliath in just the right place, and so David won. Of course, there is no doubt that David had GOD'S Help with that, so maybe outside of that circumstance, the biggest guns always do in fact win. Let's see, in The American Revolution, The British had bigger guns and a bigger and more classically trained army, so of course we're all still British subjects, right? Wait a minute, no we're not. So, clearly the biggest guns do not always win. But, even if might does not always win, might still makes right, right? Goliath had might, but he was wrong. The British had might, but they were wrong. Throughout history, most conquering armies had might, but in many if not most cases today we would look on what they did as wrong. So, clearly not only does the biggest gun not always win, but even if they do, that does bot necessarily make it right. As noted earlier this week, guns in the home are as if not more likely to be used on the home owner or by the home owner on a friend or family member as or than to stop a break in. So, clearly, guns do not rally do that much if anything to keep us safer and in fact seem to make us less safe. Obviously, we all want our families and friends safe, but we do not all agree on the method. So, what gun enthusiasts need to ask themselves is, in light of solid, empirical evidence, not the scare tactics of The Nut Case Rebellious Anarchists, is their way really the best way? And if not, how might those of us on each side of this debate work together to find solutions to these problems, because, while we differ on methods, in the end we all want basically the same thing and at the core are not that different from one another.