Well said. But, in my view, taking the guns away because of the tendency to use them for the wrong reasons is only addressing the symptom not the cause. It's a bandaid, a feel better slogan, in essence a red herring. After decades, even one might say a couple of centuries, of debate on the issue; the argument has become nothing more than a political tool - for both sides.Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
There is no reason that sane law-abiding citizens shouldn't have guns. The reasons against gun ownership all assume the opposite of sane and law abiding. You can't have the guns because you might do something insane or illegal. That doesn't seem sufficient reason to me to take away someone's right. How can society assume that someone is guilty before the fact? That is itself insane and a symptom of the problem as well.
If someone uses a gun illegally, then take the gun away and that person's right to ever own a gun again. Then they've proven they shouldn't have the right. Along with rights come responsibilities. Rights without responsibilities is just as insane as the other side assuming illegal acts that haven't yet occured.
Calling for banning guns without addressing the problems which form the cause of the illegal use of guns is just as much of an error as calling for an end to welfare without addressing the underlying causes of poverty. Won't work. Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens is just as bad as telling someone on welfare in a depressed community with no transportation to where the jobs are located to just "go get a job!" Doesn't solve the problem at all and just puts a bandaid on the symptoms.
Bookmarks