| i am against gun ownership. when compared to other countries gun violence in america is insane. michael moore makes a lot of good points if you have not watched Bowling for Columbine. guns seem pointless. other countries have shown that police are able to control society without guns, using mace and other detterants like that. general citizens have absolutely no use for guns. hunting is the only practical and possibly reasonable reason to own a gun. owning a gun for target practice is foolish. owning a gun to protect yourself from an external threat is foolish; you are afraid of what? people with other guns? thus, if you took away their guns, you would no longer need a gun.
in response to the above mentioned "honest citizens are the only that will abide".. that is very true, but it is true with anything. i would suggest higher penalties (MMS?) for gun-inclusive crimes and a crack down on weapons dealing.
also in response to the above "if people are so enraged they are going to kill someone, or are part of a gang that wants weapons for protection, it doesn't matter if they take the guns off them." you are from GB so i am not knowing how much statistics you know of america, but we have a significant accidental death stat for firearms. also, allowing people to have guns is proven to increase their desire to cause crime in the first place. it creates a mentality of purpose for the gun and a social acceptance. Adams also says knifing is higher, but I would guess that those knifing casualties are far below the would-be gun casualties, based on the simple psychology behind that act.
clearly there is something wrong when america has tens times higher gun casualties than any other country. we also own and produce more guns than any other country. these two are parallels people.
the only revolution coming is corporate. o_O
"I have the right to defend myself. And although my martial arts might help me stop beating, even knifings, it won't stop a bullet. " this seems a little silly if you think about it. it is understandable that you would fend off a physical attack with martial arts, or even a knife attack, but true, it would be useless against a bullet. but if you had a gun what would you do? shoot the bullet in midair? or would you use your john wayne skills and shoot the gun right out of their hand? chances are you would shoot to kill, knowing your life is in danger. so then, do you have the right to take someones life? the problem with the above concept is this: if someone has a gun for "protection" and someone tries to mug them, they will shoot them. if someone tries to rape them, they will shoot them. if someone doesnt use their turning signal, they will shoot them. tally up the number of firearm deaths where the person shot did not have a gun, and you might be surprised. in fact, instances where someone uses a gun to protect against someone else using a gun is probably reserved for gang violence. |