10-04-2009, 09:55 AM
We can all find and use whatever examples we want to support our position on this subject. This country/that country is better/worse off because of their laws. This state/city are better/worse off because of their laws. I can find an example to support all sides. It makes no difference to reality.
In a perfect world no one can argue that if there are no guns then there can be no gun violence. But we don't live in that world. We live in a world where guns are all around us and are part of our culture and heritage.
The problem is that we cannot eliminate all the guns from this country. And if we could we cannot stop illegal smuggling of them with our porous borders to those who do not honor our laws. No laws are perfect and are mostly just compromises.
1. Gun Seizure: If you eliminate guns by making them illegal then only those who do not honor our laws will have guns. This leaves law abiding citizens defenseless against a gun carrying criminal.
2. Concealed Carry: If you allow guns to be carried by law abiding citizens then there will be accidental deaths due to human error. But at least a law abiding citizen can protect themselves and their family outside of their home.
3. Gun Control: If you only allow law abiding citizens to use their guns in self defense of their homes then they can't defend themselves outside their homes.
Everything in this world is a compromise. Of the three compromise examples I gave above, which one would you prefer? If I missed a particular example please feel free to add a realistic scenario to the list.
The biggest problem I see here are the existing laws pertaining to punishment of someone using a gun. Not the laws controlling or outlawing a gun. I remember the TV ads they used to run in CA. "Use a gun, go to jail." If the punishment is a year or two in jail then it is not much of a punishment. If murderers are allowed to become free after 10, 20 or 30 years then most people can kill two or three times in their lifetime and serve jail time. Big deal. Our laws NEED to protect the innocent. But they seem to be encouraging the bad guys. If you let a bad guy out of jail who used a gun, chances are when he gets out he will use it again. If the bad guys know if they use a gun once then they will never get out of jail, or they would be put to death (or worse like torture), would they think twice before using a gun? Or would they use a knife, car or baseball bat instead? If we completely eliminated guns from our country would we really lower the murder and injury rate? Or just force a weapon substitution?
The Kona Forum
http://www.konaforum.com
Da Kine PC Repair Upgrade
http://www.DaKinePC.com
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former". --Albert Einstein
In a perfect world no one can argue that if there are no guns then there can be no gun violence. But we don't live in that world. We live in a world where guns are all around us and are part of our culture and heritage.
The problem is that we cannot eliminate all the guns from this country. And if we could we cannot stop illegal smuggling of them with our porous borders to those who do not honor our laws. No laws are perfect and are mostly just compromises.
1. Gun Seizure: If you eliminate guns by making them illegal then only those who do not honor our laws will have guns. This leaves law abiding citizens defenseless against a gun carrying criminal.
2. Concealed Carry: If you allow guns to be carried by law abiding citizens then there will be accidental deaths due to human error. But at least a law abiding citizen can protect themselves and their family outside of their home.
3. Gun Control: If you only allow law abiding citizens to use their guns in self defense of their homes then they can't defend themselves outside their homes.
Everything in this world is a compromise. Of the three compromise examples I gave above, which one would you prefer? If I missed a particular example please feel free to add a realistic scenario to the list.
The biggest problem I see here are the existing laws pertaining to punishment of someone using a gun. Not the laws controlling or outlawing a gun. I remember the TV ads they used to run in CA. "Use a gun, go to jail." If the punishment is a year or two in jail then it is not much of a punishment. If murderers are allowed to become free after 10, 20 or 30 years then most people can kill two or three times in their lifetime and serve jail time. Big deal. Our laws NEED to protect the innocent. But they seem to be encouraging the bad guys. If you let a bad guy out of jail who used a gun, chances are when he gets out he will use it again. If the bad guys know if they use a gun once then they will never get out of jail, or they would be put to death (or worse like torture), would they think twice before using a gun? Or would they use a knife, car or baseball bat instead? If we completely eliminated guns from our country would we really lower the murder and injury rate? Or just force a weapon substitution?
The Kona Forum
http://www.konaforum.com
Da Kine PC Repair Upgrade
http://www.DaKinePC.com
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former". --Albert Einstein