Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mordoc
While it isn't possible to get rid of guns completely, I don't agree at all that the murder rate would be the same or even nearly as high without them. To kill somone with a gun, you press a button. It takes a lot more will and effort to kill someone with a knife, a baseball bat, or what have you.
Like it or not, the easier guns are to obtain, the higher the gun-related death rate will be.
|
I agree on with the fact that that yes guns are an easier way to kill people, because flat out they are. However how easy is if for a law abiding citizen to get a gun. Now I realize that I don't know the gun laws in every state, but in California to get a gun you have to go though a 10 day Honey Moon period before you can pick up your gun. During this waiting period a background check is done and you can't get the gun if you have a criminal record. Also during this 10 days your name gun and said guns serial number are registered with the local police. I'm willing to bet that 90% of the guns that are used in violent crimes are the ones being sold out of the back of cars in dark alley's. So how is this law going to affect those sales? Very little if not at all. I do see the fact that some of those guns sold out of that car are guns that were stolen from someone who had it carelessly placed in there home where some miscreant who's robbing them can find it. Honestly how many of lets say 100 guns sold out of the back of a car come from this kind of theft, one, two maybe. If you want to remove even those two guns then make a law stating you MUST put your gun in a locked safe, and enforce that. I still have every right to own a gun, but now I have to take extra measures to keep said gun safe from the rest of the world. I have my rights, you have one or two maybe even more guns off the streets.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mordoc
Furthermore, if the argument that we need guns to protect ourselves from criminals with guns keeps being taken so far, eventually escalation is going to be a huge problem. Once small semiautomatics become as widely owned as handguns, homeowners will need weapons at least as powerful to guard their families. Once the criminals' are converted to full autos in response, well, we'll have to compete with those. Gun ownership as a protection from or deterrent to crime has always seemed self defeating to me.
|
Not necessarily true, this is going off the line of thought that I'm going to get into a "gun fight" with that individual who is breaking into MY home. It's only a competition if I plan on "shooting it out" with him/her. A 45 (what I own) in a home will do quite nicely against even a fully automatic rifle. Why you ask me, because I know my home, he doesn't. Even if he has cased the place he now knows the room locations, I know the layout of everything in those rooms. In the space allowed in a home (max dist being what 10-15 feet average) one shot in the chest, even to someone wearing enough armor to stop the round will put that punk down long enough to disarm him/her and call the police; and yes if I see a gun in his hand there's NO doubt that he/she will take the bullet square in the chest if not right in the head. No need to get a bigger faster gun, because I don't intend to A let him see me and B fight fair against him. He came into my home, not the other way around. Take my gun away, and now I have to resort to a knife or bat. If I'm going up against a gun it's going to be pretty tough, but there's still a small chance I can get him. If I'm going up against and unarmed person or someone with a bat/knife (what ever) I still have the small advantage of knowing my surroundings. Now in either of these situations someone will seriously get hurt, guns although lethal are clean. Meaning this, I can put one in his leg its a small painful wound that can be healed and gotten over. I put 190 pounds of nervous energy into a swing of a bat and someone is going to have broken bones at the very least. While this can also be healed, I have little chance of aiming for the most humane spot as I have to get close. This same swing will now be better put to use to a vital area that might not allow for such a easy finish, and will cause either A death, B a lot of pain and a wound that might not heal right (bones don't always heal right, and if this person broke into my home I'm sure they don't have good, if any health insurance) or C lasting damage that can't be gotten over i.e. brain damage. Now this person is going to be taken care of by tax payers money because he/she can't function properly. I must admit that this sounds cold, and I am sorry for this I don't want to be. The fact is though that if someone breaks into my home, I will not hesitate to defend my family with ANY means and to ANY lengths necessary. I could live with this persons death or lasting injuries, I could NOT live with my families knowing I had a chance to stop it. All I ask is don't limit my chances of defending by taking what is mine by right and is completely legal and registered.