What do you not get, being a free people involves risk and danger. The world is not a padded room for you or anyone else to avoid danger in.
Why do you insist on giving up peoples rights just so you feel safe?
What do you plan on doing to stop the biggest murderer of the 21st century?
It seems you will let them keep all of their weapons with no problems.
I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
The point is not that guns enable gun crime, I mean no **** Sherlock. Thanks for the update. Crime in general will always exist, and in countries of great freedom, you will have a good amount of crime. Though crime can and does exist in areas of complete despotism, authoritarianism, etc. too; no free society will be without a good amount of crime. It's an innate consequence of freedom. So the point isn't the restriction of guns, the removal of guns; for to do so is an act of treason. The point is to understand what we can and can't do to affect the gun crime rate while refraining from infringing upon the rights of the individual. The individual does have the right to keep and bear arms, furthermore in this country we recognize that right. Now our government was primarily constructed for the protection and proliferation of our innate and inalienable rights; rightful government works towards these goals; treasonous and tyrannical government works against these goals. So at some level, we must accept as consequence of freedom that there will be gun crime. Like there will be incite to riot and libel and slander. Like there will be gangs and riots anti-government actions. Like there will be those whom hide illegal activities on their property knowing cops can't get to them without a warrant. Freedom carries with it significant consequence and responsibility. There will be people that murder with a gun, but that's not the gun's fault and that is not the fault of other gun owners. The person at fault is the one who pulled the trigger and it is with that person with whom we must take exception.
In a free society, everything is dealt with on an individual basis (which is why automatic sentencing is a very bad and dangerous practice). You can not go after the rights of others because some choose to abuse those rights. You have to go after the individual who committed the crimes; knowing that because you are free means that there will be crime. But I still say it sure as hell beats the alternative. Rather free than a slave I say.
You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
I realize certain SWAT Teams and so forth carry assault type weapons when there is grave danger, but most policemen don't go to domestic disturbances with their assault weapons out in the open.
I think the right to bear arms should be different in different arenas. Everyday citizens should be allowed to have guns and even high powered weapons within some standard of reason, but when it's all too lethal, it's too lethal. Mostly it's the nuts who usually do all the damage with the really high powered weapons.
"It's not that I'm afraid to die, I just don't want to be there when it happens." Woody Allen.
You seem to be of the opinion that guns are only for use against animals.
I don't know what data lead you to conclude that this nation needed to be secured against flying monkey armies or demonic bunnies, but may I suggest you lay off of both the pot and the Monty Python.
Yes, guns are made to kill people. That is their primary use. We buy guns so that we can kill people. That's what we want to be capable of doing.
In the UK gun violence has only increased with restrictions. Handguns were banned in the mid-90s but gun violence continued to grow until it peaked in the early 2000s. It is slightly lower now but it shows no sign of going back to the pre-ban levels.
"It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke
All this means is that if you remove access to one weapon, crime will compensate with another. The issue itself, I believe, is crime in general. How do you reduce the tendency to want to commit violent crime? Social programs? Tougher prison sentences? Educating the public? Etc.
While I have issues with guns, I don't agree that eliminating them will necessarily stop murders and reduce violent crime.