longbough

I don't want to take away from the democratic process - but I am obligated to speak out if I believe something isn't right - regardless of the majority opinion.

Historically, in the U.S. the community consensus once supported witch trials, slavery and racial segregation. If not for the efforts of a passionate and informed minority to relentlessly inform and educate the masses these "common sense" truths would have never been challenged in a public forum of free ideas.

Most people don't own nor do they wish to own a firearm. It is understandable that they would vote to restrict every firearm in circulation - but that doesn't make a comprehensive ban right.

I own a firearm for the protection of my family and myself - I am trained and qualified to own and operate a firearm for personal defense. A blind-comprehensive gun ban means that I, as a law-abiding citizen, will be required to turn in any handguns in my possession. Tell me specifically how that makes me safer? On the basis of principle you might believe that “society as a whole” is better because of “one less gun” in the world – but that has absolutely no relevance on my personal well-being within my lifetime.

A blind-comprehensive gun ban will affect straw purchases of illegal arms - but it will affect the law-abiding gun-owners even more (since we won't have them at all). Do you believe the most problematic criminals wouldn't generate alternative means to obtain them?

When legal means of alcohol were eliminated during prohibition (where, undoubtedly, it was most readily available) did the use of alcohol cease? No. That just transferred existing demand to a flourishing black market of illegal smuggling. The same is true for marijuana, heroin, cocaine and amphetamines. There’s no reason to think that gunrunning wouldn't flourish as well. Gunrunning is as old as guns themselves.

But even the potential elimination of guns among criminals doesn’t eliminate my need to have one as a means of self-defense either. It is legally and realistically justifiable to use a firearm to defend my family against a home invader armed with a knife or a pipe who is intent on doing harm. At face value that may seem like an excessive use of force against someone with a knife, but should I be expected to enter a knife-fight with such a person? What if I were an elderly person living alone? What if I were a woman about to be raped?

Contrary to how it may sound, I’m not making the case to arm more civilians nor to make firearms more universally available to the public. Some degree of legislation is certainly in order as well as the funding for resources to address underlying social problems as well as the means to fight criminal activity – but a comprehensive gun-ban is NOT the solution. I think it’s important to enact laws that would have a more SPECIFIC effect on the criminal acquisition of deadly weapons.