Friday, January 11, 2013

Unable to make the connection

Gun Control seems to be the top news story and talk show topic these days. One side wants to keep all their guns and the other side wants to ban them. 

Personally, I believe in the Bill Of Rights. I believe in the 2nd Amendment. It's fundamental to our freedom. That's my belief.

However, I'm a rational person. I love debate. I am willing to listen to people I disagree with and hear them out on their point of view. So when it comes to those who want to ban guns, namely semi-automatic weapons, I'm listening for a good argument as to why we should allow such a law.

The one area where I can't seem to make a connection nor has anyone helped me to do so is this: 

How is banning assault weapons or placing extremely restrictive laws on purchasing a gun going to stop criminals from killing people with guns? You cannot not legislate morality. 

Drugs are illegal yet people use them every day. Even legal drugs are abused by people who shouldn't have them.

Please help me to understand how making it more restrictive and difficult for law abiding citizens to purchase guns is going to keep us safe from those who have a complete disregard for the law and will purchase weapons on the soon to emerge, weapons black market, should any such ban be put in place.

Like I said I can't make the connection... so what am I missing?


  1. No law will be perfect, because people aren't perfect. People will still get guns they shouldn't have,and use them for horrible things...but does that mean we should just throw up our hands and make it easy for them by having these weapons readily available?

    You mentioned drugs in your argument... because people illegally obtain drugs, should we get rid of the laws against them and sell them at Wal Mart?

    They put new laws for drunk driving into effect in the 70's and there are still people killed by drunk drivers, it's true... but the numbers have been cut by 2/3rds. That's significant. That's lots of parents and kids that got to make it home safe to their families. If we could cut gun deaths by 2/3rds, I think it's worth it.

    And as far as the 2nd amendment goes. It speaks of a well regulated militia, not drive by shootings, or people with mental problems storming schools and movie theaters. And they had muskets, not guns that could kill dozens of people in seconds. So no, I don't think magazines that can fire 100 rounds before reloading and the guns that can hold them are really what the founding fathers had in mind.

    So have a gun. For protection, for hunting, even if it that still seems dangerous to me, it is in the constitution. But I don't think people need the guns like the ones that have been used in these crimes, and I don't think it should be as easy as wandering into a gun show and scooping up a weapon that is intended to kill things. You have to get a license to drive a car, and I believe you should need a license to own a gun.
    That's my argument :)

    1. You make some valid points and I respect your opinion. However, I'm still not seeing how making more restrictive guns laws is going to stop crime with guns. Like you said people will still get guns they shouldn't have.

      Regarding the 2nd Amendment. I am of the opinion that it's purpose it to keep is citizens armed in the event a tyrannical leader were to come to power and needed to be overthrown. While it may be unlikely that such a leader would ever come to power it's a lot more difficult when your citizens are armed.

      I appreciate the comment. Take care.

  2. I think the theory is that at least these guns won't be as readily available. In the Sandy Hook shootings, the gun was legal... had he had availability to only single shot weapons, the damage could have been much less.

    As for the 2nd amendment, yes, it is there to protect us from the government, but there are other amendments that protect us from a government that goes tyrannical. In the end... NRA enrollment is up over 100K since Sandy Hook. Clearly something's incredibly wrong with our country.

    1. If there we not already semi-automatic weapons out there perhaps a law prohibiting them might work. But since they are already out there I don't see how passing yet another law makes us any safer.

      Yes, there are other amendments to protect us but they all work together. Taking away the 2nd weakens your position in all the other areas.

      Thanks for the comment!

    2. There should be just one federal law. Taking away such weapons would make it a safer environment for all of us.
      Making an argument that we need weapons to protect ourselves is just silly. After all we have police and military in place for that.