Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
It's all imaginary and hypothetical at the moment, the worst part of this whole issue is that it's only a mistake we'll be able to make once.
|
Okay, here's the thing:
1) Guns are used as weapons by people with ill intent to threaten or cause harm. While this is illegal, current law enforcement is unable to fix the problem completly. I think we can both agree that at least part of the reason that they are unsuccessful is the obvious failures of gun control laws. There are only a few general ways to stop the forementioned people from aquiring guns: I say these are a complete gun ban, or better gun control, while you say allowing everyone to carry. I suggest that better control and monitoring of gun production and sales will improve the success rate of those trying to stop illegal gun sales and use. I say that holding those that produce guns liable for what is done with them is a way to force the industry into being responsible. I say that a more difficult test to get firearms would benifit all. You say that a sort of mutually assured destruction standpoint to gun control; if everyone has a gun, then everyone will be less likely to use it because they'd be afraid of being shot themselves. My question to you is: wouldn't this make you, the victim, less likely to fire on criminals out of the feear of being fired upon yourself? Also, wouldn't the career criminal simply do what's necessary to be a successful criminal in a world covered in guns? Couldn't he or she just toss a gernade into your window, then rob what's left of your house or other escilation? Or maybe they could snipe you through an open window? In other words, I think that your solution is begging for escelation.
2) How likely is the government to take away your freedoms by force? Doe ths US military and police really have the manpower to take away our freedoms?