- Oct 10, 2006
- 21,562
- 3
- 0
So I just had an extensive debate with some of my more liberal acquaintances and I need to get this out. They seem to be of the opinion that severe gun restrictions will magically lead to fewer killings by virtue of the fact that there will simply be fewer guns to go around.
And that's what pisses me off. Alcohol kills more people/year then gun crime. Why don't we give alcohol prohibition another shot? Oh, right, that utterly failed. So instead we've accepted alcohol as a part of life (as it has been for thousands of years), and try to teach people to drink responsibly. When someone doesn't drink responsibly, they are likely to kill themselves if not others. Yet when we hear about an alcohol related death, everyone accepts it as a tragedy and moves on. Maybe MADD makes some noise no one cares about.
When someone uses a gun irresponsibly, suddenly it's OMG WE NEED MOAR GUN RESTRICTIONS!!!!oneone1! Now I'm not saying we should teach firearm responsibility in schools or anything (although the idea has some merit), as guns aren't as ubiquitous as alcohol (hence the fewer gun crime related deaths); but I'm just pointing out the relative hypocrisy here. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible when it comes to their firearms. If they get drunk however...
Thus the issue of deaths due to gun crime as an argument for gun control is laid to rest.
What weapon control in general (from knives to guns to explosives) comes down to is control over the power to kill. How much power should the average person have in this regard? Here's my perspective:
A person should be able to defend their home and themselves from a home invasion/robbery with lethal force. Even assuming the unlikely case that there is only one assailant, the most efficient and SAFEST way for a person to do this is via a semi-automatic handgun or pump action/semi automatic shotgun. For the record I believe semi-automatic shotguns should be restricted, just stating a fact. I mentioned safety, because, well what's safer? Shooting the assailant from a distance or engaging them in a knife fight? Especially if there are multiple assailants.
As a side note, it is well established that among burglars and such, their greatest fear is not the police, alarm systems, or guard dogs. It's running into a homeowner with a gun.
Likewise I believe people should be able to defend themselves with lethal force outside of their homes. Very few people on this earth are so sheltered that they've never been in a bad neighborhood/otherwise at risk at some point. Thus I am a strong supporter of concealed carry.
I do not believe that an individual should have the power to mow down entire crowds. Thus I am against fully automatic weapons and semiautomatic shotguns being generally available.
Along the same line of thought, I am also against military-grade explosives being generally available, although that's a separate issue, as anyone with internet access can look up recipes for a DIY bomb.
Another thing I notice about most people I know who are for severe gun restrictions, they're scared. They don't like the idea of someone having the ability to threaten them with lethal force, and instead of adapting to their environment they try to make their environment adapt to them. Unfortunately in cases like this that mentality tramples the rights of others and punishes the responsible majority for the well-publicized acts of an extreme minority.
Suffice to say in a couple of years when I get my own place, (or possibly sooner as I'm looking into apartments), I fully intend to buy a gun and learn how to use it; as well as apply for concealed carry. If that scares you or alters your opinion of me, then you should get to know me a little better.
And that's what pisses me off. Alcohol kills more people/year then gun crime. Why don't we give alcohol prohibition another shot? Oh, right, that utterly failed. So instead we've accepted alcohol as a part of life (as it has been for thousands of years), and try to teach people to drink responsibly. When someone doesn't drink responsibly, they are likely to kill themselves if not others. Yet when we hear about an alcohol related death, everyone accepts it as a tragedy and moves on. Maybe MADD makes some noise no one cares about.
When someone uses a gun irresponsibly, suddenly it's OMG WE NEED MOAR GUN RESTRICTIONS!!!!oneone1! Now I'm not saying we should teach firearm responsibility in schools or anything (although the idea has some merit), as guns aren't as ubiquitous as alcohol (hence the fewer gun crime related deaths); but I'm just pointing out the relative hypocrisy here. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible when it comes to their firearms. If they get drunk however...
Thus the issue of deaths due to gun crime as an argument for gun control is laid to rest.
What weapon control in general (from knives to guns to explosives) comes down to is control over the power to kill. How much power should the average person have in this regard? Here's my perspective:
A person should be able to defend their home and themselves from a home invasion/robbery with lethal force. Even assuming the unlikely case that there is only one assailant, the most efficient and SAFEST way for a person to do this is via a semi-automatic handgun or pump action/semi automatic shotgun. For the record I believe semi-automatic shotguns should be restricted, just stating a fact. I mentioned safety, because, well what's safer? Shooting the assailant from a distance or engaging them in a knife fight? Especially if there are multiple assailants.
As a side note, it is well established that among burglars and such, their greatest fear is not the police, alarm systems, or guard dogs. It's running into a homeowner with a gun.
Likewise I believe people should be able to defend themselves with lethal force outside of their homes. Very few people on this earth are so sheltered that they've never been in a bad neighborhood/otherwise at risk at some point. Thus I am a strong supporter of concealed carry.
I do not believe that an individual should have the power to mow down entire crowds. Thus I am against fully automatic weapons and semiautomatic shotguns being generally available.
Along the same line of thought, I am also against military-grade explosives being generally available, although that's a separate issue, as anyone with internet access can look up recipes for a DIY bomb.
Another thing I notice about most people I know who are for severe gun restrictions, they're scared. They don't like the idea of someone having the ability to threaten them with lethal force, and instead of adapting to their environment they try to make their environment adapt to them. Unfortunately in cases like this that mentality tramples the rights of others and punishes the responsible majority for the well-publicized acts of an extreme minority.
Suffice to say in a couple of years when I get my own place, (or possibly sooner as I'm looking into apartments), I fully intend to buy a gun and learn how to use it; as well as apply for concealed carry. If that scares you or alters your opinion of me, then you should get to know me a little better.
Facebook
Twitter