Gun Control. Yay or Nay?

Question

Just looking for opinions on gun control and other issues like death penalty and concealed weapons.

Answer 1

Nay--and here is an awesome reason why:

WHY THE GUN IS CIVILIZATION

Forwarded By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys
with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical
strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a
defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed
either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings
and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the
equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Answer 2

I believe that even the Democrats have finally realized that Gun Control is a dead issue. It cost them the South in 94 and they may never get it back.

Gun control is a loser in every country it has ever been implemented in. The home invasion rate went up by 1000% when Australia bannned guns. The European violent crimne rate is much higher than the USA's. That is a figure that no one wants to discuss but it is true.

In the USA, states with less restrictive gun laws have lower crime rates. It is a fct that cannot be disputed.

You will often her the call for reasonable laws. Sounds good until you know what reasonable means. That means registering you guns like your car. Last I heard no one was confiscating cars. In California residents were rquired to register guns with certain cosmetic features. Once the reasonable registration had ended the guns were confiscated. In Canada the same story.

Reasonable laws are on the books now if they are enforced. There needs to be no more laws made. The Second Amendment does gie you the right to bear arms, regardless of what any self appointed tyrant tells you

Gun COntrol is a loser on every political, moral, safety and constutional front.

Answer 3

Read the book called More Guns, Less Crime. ( think this is the title, could be slightly different)
I believe in the constitution of the United States of America, the second amendment- the right to bear arms. They put this in there for a reason because whomever has the guns, has the control & power. Maxim of law: the creator should never serve its creation.

Answer 4

Nay, I think that this world would be a much less violent place as a matter of fact if there was less gun control, I think that all citizens should be allowed to carry concealed weapons, think about it, if you werea robber or a rapist, wouldn't you think twice if you DIDN"T KNOW if the other person had a gun or not

Answer 5

Nay We in basic terms prefer rules that are on the realm of victims and to prosecute the Criminals. And if we've a harder Gun administration then guess what occurs? Drug Cartel from Mexico won't basically be dealing drugs yet additionally weapons. And the weapons bought on the line is additionally hazardous and could reason greater injury.

Answer 6

Gun control is using both hands

Answer 7

Nay, more guns in the hands of responsible citizens means less crime.

Answer 8

NAY! i have a family to think about. if someone steps into my house with a gun, i should have the right to protect my family and myself

Answer 9

in my world gun control means using both hands...

Answer 10

No.
The 2nd amendment was written to prevent politicians from messing with our other constitutional rights.