|
Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
12-21-2012, 09:50 PM | #251 (permalink) |
Partying on the inside
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,584
|
Also, I'd like you to know that I'm not against stricter gun laws. Not in the slightest. I'm just arguing against the outright banning of them and for the feasibility of using them to protect the very people we lost recently.
|
12-21-2012, 10:02 PM | #253 (permalink) | ||
Music Addict
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,711
|
Quote:
Quote:
That said, I don't think most criminals on the street (who make up the majority of the murders) would have as easy access to guns when they're exclusively on the black market. But it's true that most Mexican criminals get their guns from the U.S. So it's not unreasonable to assume that outlawing guns would make it more difficult for criminals to bear arms as well. |
||
12-21-2012, 10:50 PM | #254 (permalink) | |
Music Addict
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 5,184
|
Quote:
The thing I find absurd is simply the idea that any country is so far gone with its weapons/mass violence that the only solution being discussed seriously to decrease violence is to counter it with the threat of more violence. To me, outside the situation, it's so sad it seems almost farcical. |
|
12-21-2012, 10:52 PM | #255 (permalink) | |
Music Addict
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,711
|
Quote:
Putting logicality aside for a moment, I'm legitimately scared of the idea that we'd all have to bear arms against each other to stay safe. What a hostile, dog eat dog world. Certainly not something I'd desire to be a part of |
|
12-21-2012, 11:04 PM | #256 (permalink) |
Music Addict
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 5,184
|
I won't claim any expertise on the matter, so please stop me where I'm wrong, but this is how I currently see the situation.
A) No other equivalent country has the same problem with firearms. B) The banning of firearms has been successful for other countries in which they were once prevalent (see: Australia after the Port Arthur Massacre). C) The biggest barrier to change to me looks like the nation's attitude towards
|
12-21-2012, 11:09 PM | #257 (permalink) | |
Music Addict
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,711
|
Quote:
The problem lies in correcting the person is MUCH more difficult than correcting the gun laws. Now two different approaches exist for this. People like myself say tighten gun control because pacifying people is a very difficult and, arguably, too personally intrusive a process. I'm not saying steps shouldn't be taken to help these people, just that as it stands it wouldn't eradicate the issue at hand. And others say, the people are the problem, 'America is the land of the free and I have the right to bear arms.' Personally, I'm willing to sacrifice freedom if it benefits standard of living. Not all are willing to make that compromise. |
|
12-21-2012, 11:12 PM | #258 (permalink) | |||
Partying on the inside
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,584
|
I'm not sure you actually understand what's being represented by those two signs being side by side...
The left sign implies that people who follow laws will not bring guns to the area, meaning that those who don't, if they choose to, will meet no resistance, as was readily apparent at Sandy Hook. The right sign implies that if someone was there legally carrying a firearm and able to use it effectively and responsibly, may provide either a deterrent or the resistance necessary to save lives until the police finally roll in. I'm astounded that this isn't simple logic understood by all. It's not making a case that little kids should be walking around kindergarten with guns all willy-nilly... It's making a case that trained, responsible individuals should be allowed to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Why does everyone think the argument is about just saying "Oh yea, no problem, everyone bring guns to school! More guns equals more protection no matter who is carrying them!!!!". It's not and never has been about that. If you're OK with police having guns for the protection of the public, you should be ok with them, or civilian equivalents, standing guard for the safety of them in schools as well. Not agreeing with that makes even less sense than what you're insinuating. Quote:
Again, I'm not against restrictions, but I think the line should be drawn somewhere before restricting availability completely. Quote:
Quote:
Guns are illegally obtained by criminals all the time. They're not all breaking into houses and stealing legitimately owned guns to commit their crimes. This notion that preventing clean citizens from owning firearms will somehow make a difference in the criminal world is wildly misguided, and wouldn't actually solve any problem for the criminal element. Yea, it might make it harder for the next Lanza to do what he did, but if we're putting this on the basis of human life and violent acts in general, then no. Not gonna change much. And since we're intelligent, thoughtful people here, we don't just take the ability away for decent people to protect themselves while simultaneously preventing those same people from protecting school children simply to make the next Lanza have to resort to other means, and simultaneously not do anything about criminal violence. |
|||
12-21-2012, 11:14 PM | #259 (permalink) |
Make it so
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,181
|
Yeah Peds, I think it's the way to go. American's are obsessed with free rights to do whatever they damn well please. It's just not realistic.
__________________
"Elph is truly an enfant terrible of the forum, bless and curse him" - Marie, Queen of Thots
|
12-21-2012, 11:16 PM | #260 (permalink) |
Music Addict
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 5,184
|
Is there a reason not to limit people to the number and type of guns they can own?
EDIT: It's not the physical ownership of guns I find unreasonable or disturbing, it's the attitude and enthusiasm towards them that just seems... wrong. |
|