Delta4Embassy
Gold Member
Murder's always been illegal. Yet that has never prevented a murderer from commiting murder. So why do gun control people think passing a law banning a gun will prevent gun violence? Attempted murder and murder are already illegal. But that doesn't stop it from happening.
Mass shootings happen in Europe even with their ultra strict gun control laws. The bad guys still manage to get a hold of firearms to commit their crimes. And when your intention is to kill people do you really think they're taking any notice of a gun law? "Gee, I was gonna go shoot up my work I was fired from but it's illegal. Guess I'll do something else instead." That never happens. Yet we continue to try and calm our fears of violence by banning the tools used. It's like banning the car after a drunk driving incident. That never happens either because it wasn't the car's fault but the driver's. Yet we don't use this obvious straight-foward logic when it comes to guns. Why?
People associate guns with violence, and rightly so. That's fair enough. But a gun can also end violence as when police arrive. If you're faced with some homocidal lunatic shooting at you and you're unarmed, you call the Police. Why? Because they have guns and training to use them. Yet in fact, police training is very minimal and a civilian can get vastly superior training in less time to make themselves safer in the event of a shooting incident. But if only police and criminals have guns we're all being put in greater jeopardy. Many mass murderers have said they chose a gun-free locale over ones where people may be armed. So what do gun-free zones accomplish? And what good is a gun ban or restriction when only people who never go on shooting sprees abide by them?
It's understandable to wanna feel safe. But the only way to feel safe is if you actually are safe. Laws never prevented a crime. Sometimes the best solution to a criminal problem is to match up and answer fire. And while untrained people firing back at a bad guy can result in 'friendly fire' and even more victims, it's better to risk that than as much as declare open hunting season on families at a mall, or one's co-workers.
To the gun control people: if you believe gun bans and restrictions are how we should do things ask yourselves if you'd apply that logic on anational level and support military disarmament. If guns are the problem, and getting rid of guns is the solution, then extending that logic the US should disarm itself. Or would that seem like a problem? And if so, why isn't the notion just as ill-advised on a personal level as national? If someone starts lobbing missiles at us, or hostile navies show up and troops are coming ashore what dya wanna do about it? Lodge a protest with the UN and hope peacekeepers show up soon enough to save you, or do you want an armed response?
Mass shootings happen in Europe even with their ultra strict gun control laws. The bad guys still manage to get a hold of firearms to commit their crimes. And when your intention is to kill people do you really think they're taking any notice of a gun law? "Gee, I was gonna go shoot up my work I was fired from but it's illegal. Guess I'll do something else instead." That never happens. Yet we continue to try and calm our fears of violence by banning the tools used. It's like banning the car after a drunk driving incident. That never happens either because it wasn't the car's fault but the driver's. Yet we don't use this obvious straight-foward logic when it comes to guns. Why?
People associate guns with violence, and rightly so. That's fair enough. But a gun can also end violence as when police arrive. If you're faced with some homocidal lunatic shooting at you and you're unarmed, you call the Police. Why? Because they have guns and training to use them. Yet in fact, police training is very minimal and a civilian can get vastly superior training in less time to make themselves safer in the event of a shooting incident. But if only police and criminals have guns we're all being put in greater jeopardy. Many mass murderers have said they chose a gun-free locale over ones where people may be armed. So what do gun-free zones accomplish? And what good is a gun ban or restriction when only people who never go on shooting sprees abide by them?
It's understandable to wanna feel safe. But the only way to feel safe is if you actually are safe. Laws never prevented a crime. Sometimes the best solution to a criminal problem is to match up and answer fire. And while untrained people firing back at a bad guy can result in 'friendly fire' and even more victims, it's better to risk that than as much as declare open hunting season on families at a mall, or one's co-workers.
To the gun control people: if you believe gun bans and restrictions are how we should do things ask yourselves if you'd apply that logic on anational level and support military disarmament. If guns are the problem, and getting rid of guns is the solution, then extending that logic the US should disarm itself. Or would that seem like a problem? And if so, why isn't the notion just as ill-advised on a personal level as national? If someone starts lobbing missiles at us, or hostile navies show up and troops are coming ashore what dya wanna do about it? Lodge a protest with the UN and hope peacekeepers show up soon enough to save you, or do you want an armed response?
Last edited:
