You know? You made a respectable amount of sense up until the quoting of figures of people killed. I mean, there is a glaring figure missing here - and this is the number of people killed by America, both domestically and abroad in theaters of war half-way around the planet...
To be clear, I am not fully anti-guns but I do believe that gun-ownership should be more restricted subject to training. The rest of the population can use non-lethals and body armor.
I get that you have been a very responsible gun owner. I am less convinced that you represent the rule rather than the exception - as evidenced by the number of cases involving children or even animals discharging weapons.
Incidentally in Star Trek they prefer to set their phasers to stun. If one in every two individuals in any given room is capable of stunning an assailant, and half of these also wear body armour as a force of habit? Then robberies will grow a lot less common - as would fatalities - since criminals know that they cannot pull some mental ju jitsu to justify pulling that trigger 'because he had a gun'. That - or body armour.
Well... that loses some of its power when some civilians also carry lethals.
Regardless of my reservations I do feel that you have very well stated your points overall - and that in spite of my thoughts on gun ownership there remains scope for such in the American context - although a people who would fear their government so fully as to stow weapons as insurance should really be looking into scaling back the powers of said government.
Hello Pathfirger, sorry for the delayed response, I just realized there was a comment on this. Thanks for your comments! I'm certain we have many areas of agreement. I support the idea that people who are either not competent or have been shown to be a danger to others shouldn't have guns. I also concede that such people obtain guns in any event. Regardless of the reason for owning a gun, I see no valid reason one person can prohibit guns from another peaceful competent person. It's a live and let live thing.
Marc
PS. I'm actually not much of a gun guy myself. I see guns as a tool, like a hammer or a screwdriver. Tools can't do anything on their own, it takes people to operate these tools. I'd love a world where humans live in peace and a gun was just a waste of money. But that's not the world we live in.
Thank you,
Peace!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Greetings @attorney4freedom.
Thank you for getting back to me. :c)
Persons who are willing to listen to each other are doomed to find similarities. I'd wager that even Donald Trump and Kim Jong Il would find a fair number of commonalities if they spent a week together on a neutral resort. So confident am I of the general truth of this that I'd even throw Pope Francis into the mix, though it may take up to two weeks for such a diverse trio to truly gel with their similarities. I digress however. ;c)
I personally feel that access to non-lethals and body armor should be a right while access to lethals should be a privilege similar to driving. Different licences provide access to progressively more advanced weapons. One covering shotguns and hunting rifles, one covering pistols and a couple more entering into the realm of automatic and heavy calibers. I also feel that heavier-handed non-lethals should also fall under a licence type.
If a person is licensed then yes, there is no legitimate reason to withold right to access lethals, although I do feel that anti-cache measures would be beneficial (does a person need 500 rounds of ammunition in a gun closet in the basement?).
The problem with that logic is that some genuinely believe that they need to be well-catered for offensively in case they need to defend against an ever more imposing government (and they might). So - yes... I've been trying to leave that aspect aside.
Oh... and a hammer can bludgeon and a screwdriver can skewer. Both would constitute abuses of the tools - not being aligned with their original purposes - which are themselves considered desirable.
A gun, on the other hand, is not abused when it is fired. It is doing precisely what it was designed for - and furthermore it is purpose not too unlike that of a nuke. You hope that you'll never use it - and even when you do use it the consequences echo well into the future.
Thank you again for the response. ^_^
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit