Quote:
Originally Posted by dalmations202
I like your logic, but in my opinion it is terribly flawed.
Lets take your bomb thoughts. Making a bomb is seriously easy. It happens over in lots of countries - outside the US - on a way too common theme. These people don't have access to making the bullets, and bombs work so much easier -- so they use them.
You make a law against it, but everyone knows that the bad guys will have these, and that if we don't have a deterrent against it -- they will use them. See Israel.
Guns are the equalizer. A 120 lb woman who can wield a gun can eliminate a threat from a bomb carrying 320 lb beast of a man. As bad a$$ as the man may be, he can't walk through bullets -- hence the reason that the gun is still around -- it is a tool - not the problem.
I do understand the logic of limiting assault weapons. I just think it is flawed logic. Yes you will save some who would have died. No you won't save most as the person would just find a different way to do it. The flaw is that you also open up the ability of crooks to be even more brazen and kill others because you don't have the "equalizer" there to deter it.
Would you rather go into a house that you know doesn't have an assault weapon in it -- when you have one (you being the outlaw) or would you rather worry about going into that house because they probably have that weapon? I know that in the end, if someone in my household was killed by an outlaw that had an assault weapon, and I couldn't defend my self because they were outlawed -- then I would probably become an outlaw myself. I would find a way to defend myself and my family regardless.
The law written didn't stop the outlaw -- it only stopped the lawful person from being able to defend themselves.
With that said, where do you draw the line? Should I be a lawful citizen or an outlaw? You will never eliminate the guns because like drugs their is a market for them. You can just make them more expensive by creating a black market for them. They will always be available due to human engineering or theft -- if you know the right people or have enough money.
So why are you really trying to eliminate them from the law abiding people?
As far as bombs go -- a trained person can build that in about 10 minutes at Home Depot. Yet we aren't going to shut down Home Depot are we?
As far at the automobile argument -- funny how guns work everyone up, yet they justify the automobile.... according to the FBI statistics -- In 2010 there were 358 murders involving rifles. Murders involving the use of pistols in the US that same year totaled 6,009, with another 1,939 murders with the firearm type unreported. (NOTE this does not include suicide). So at most ~2300 deaths involving assault weapons (and this is including all except handguns).
Yet in the same year 32,885 died on US highways. Over 14 Times more people killed on the highways.
Why is it the guns that we want to pursue? I don't understand the logic.
Yes I know that a few people might be saved by the assault weapon ban -- I also know that a few more might be killed by the assault weapon ban. So we are worried about the scraps instead of the meal. Typical logic in today's America -- waste a dollar to save a penny. Just make sure that it doesn't effect me.
Now to give my opinion about the vehicle situation. Why aren't all vehicles equipped with a blow device that won't allow them to start with alcohol on your breath. We have the technology already -- why not just pass a law effecting everyone. Why not have a speed limiting device that would not allow a vehicle to go over this speed. We have the technology -- why not pass the law -- it would save lives. Why not equip a car with a chip that reads speed limits and put a transponder in the speed limit sign poles so that you can't speed -- we have the technology and it would save lives. Why not pass a law that all cars require all of this?
Now - who is going to pay for it?
At least with these things - you could effect a larger number of people.
|
So if I were to boil down your arguments to two statements, I think they would be:
1. Laws are pointless.
2. The safest option is for every non-felon to have a gun.
Sounds like the old West to me. That place was totally safe, right?
Also, do you see the conflicting agendas when you, in one breath, claim that limiting gun ownership imposes on a populaces' freedom and ability to defend itself, and then in the next breath ask for government restriction and technological devices affecting when and how we can operate our personal modes of transportation?