Even as U.S. President Barack Obama unveiled his gun control plans today – utilizing more than 20 counts of executive privledge in doing do – Americans divided themselves into two sides in order to debate the harshest limitations on the ownership of firearms in the United States in decades.
Calling themselves “left” and “right,” and “liberal” and “conservative,” each side offers great arguments for their positions, proving clearly that the question of gun control in that country is both a contentious and complex issue.
But not that complex.
Listen up, my gun-loving American friends: you need stricter gun control measures, and there are two very good reasons why you should chill out about it all.
1. No One is Attacking You
Besides the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there has never been an act of war commited on continental American soil by a non-citizen. You are not at imminent risk of invasion. Enemies are not at the gates (assuming you don’t think of Mexican border jumpers and Canadian shoppers as enemies).
Now, I can practically hear you all yelling at your screens about criminals being the only ones with assault rifles, and a ban on that type of weapon leaving your families prone to the whims of drug addicts and thieves. Let’s be serious, though: won’t a single shot (or two) from a more reasonable firearm kill a would-be thief or murderer just as well as a smattering of shots from an AR-15?
Yes. It will.
Unless you imminently expect to have your house showered in a hail of bullets from random bad guys, your hand guns are more than enough power to keep said bad guys at bay.
2. The Government Would Kick Your Ass Anyway
One argument that I often hear is that citizens should not have access to less firepower than the government, a notion highlighted in the Second Amendment’s own admonishment that a “well regulated militia” be maintained. This argument takes into account the fact that an American citizen may need to defend himself from enemies both outside and in, and gives him the ability to protect his family and property from any force. I agree in principal; the government is the last body one should put their faith in, and I feel more threatened by the enemies within than without on any given day.
On the other hand, though, how many fighter jets do you own? Nuclear weapons? Tanks?
That’s the thing; even while citizens may fight to retain their right to own high-powered assault weapons, none of them, forming a “well regulated militia” or not, has the ability to withstand the kind of force the government has at its disposal. You can have an AK-47 in each hand as the heavy artillery lands upon you, but it won’t do you one bit of good, and you’ll be no better protected than if you owned only hand guns.
Less Guns, Less Death – Period
These two simple facts should help you to get over your fear of being left defenseless, while also offering the added reassurance that random mental cases don’t have easy access to weapons of mass murder. Adam Lanza didn’t have mob connections, he had a gun-loving mother who kept assault rifles in her home. Remove those assault rifles, and Lanza kills one or two children before a teacher manages to take him down, instead of the 20 he managed to snuff out, along with six adults.
Or maybe the balls it takes for a young man to storm an elementary school and kill nearly 30 people are lost altogether without the security that a high-powered weapon offers.
No matter which way you look at it, it’s good riddance to bad rubbish.
Good luck getting the gunnuts to listen to you. They just call anyone against military grade guns in public hands a libtard or a socialist and call it a day.
Hi Shelly, thanks for commenting. You’re most likely right, but my intention really isn’t to change minds, rather just to express myself and my point of view. Americans have enough mainstream media to push the anti-gun agenda down their throats, they really don’t need me!
Adam Lanza didn’t use an ar-15. He had 4 pistols. So that’s debunked , and it doesn’t matter what the opinions of others is. The 2nd amendment is what it is. It concrete. Shall not be infringed. Period. And for those that say it was about muskets , the first amendment is referring to your voice at the courthouse -not the Internet or tv or radio. So if you except the first amendment as all the above , you must except the second amendment in the same manner. Sorry to be the one to break this to you. But it’s true more legal guns less crime. Compare Austin Texas to Chicago.
You may be right on some of those points, but if you really believe that the Second Amendment is “concrete,” you’re mad. Don’t doubt your own government’s ability to remove your rights as it sees fit.
For better or worse, there are a myriad of forces in the modern world that are much stronger than any one law, no matter how beloved, and even none of those are anything close to concrete.
Hey there, I don’t want to pull up a dead thread, but there are a few points I’d like to discuss. First of all, I will admit to being a gun nut. That doesn’t mean I’m affiliated with any political party, as none of them seem to have any balance of brains and compassion, they’re all leaning to one side or the other. I just enjoy working on, with, and firing guns.
I see a lot of similar posts elsewhere, most of them going to the basic “why do you need it” and “the government will protect you” aspects.
So, my view on the “why do you need it” approach: there are a lot of things people don’t need. Luxurious cars, large houses, big TV’s, etc. Or, you could go deeper and say nothing is essential to human life other than food, water, and shelter. Yet, we surround ourselves with these things to comfort our lives, things that interest us and that we enjoy. For some, it’s computers, others cars, and there’s those, like me, who have a primary interest in firearms. I don’t like having people tell me that I don’t need something that interests me. It is my life, and I have my own interests, it shouldn’t matter to others what they are or how relevant to my life they are. The only exception I could see to that philosophy are things like drugs or alcohol, where they are actually harming the person using them and could potentially harm those around them. In this case however, no more harm is being done here than can be done with other hobbies or interests. If you don’t like guns, don’t get one.
You, and other anti-gun upholders probably also at least want a magazine capacity ban. My theory to that is that a 30 round AR-15 magazine doesn’t make me more deadly or able to kill more people than a car’s 30 gallon gas tank makes people get involved in high-speed police chases. The thought behind it doesn’t make any moral or practical sense.
And yes, there are times when a pistol might get the job done better than a rifle will, but there are also times when a rifle will get the job done better than a pistol will.
The second amendment was created so that the people could have a means of defense against whatever threat may apprehend itself to them, foreign or domestic. In 1775, the British began confiscation of muskets from the colonists, as then they were military weapons and could be used against them. No, the removal of firearms didn’t cause the American Revolution, but it did play a major role in it.
I’m not saying that we need another revolution, but we need to be safe rather than sorry. And yes, the citizens of the United States would stand a chance against our military, if we kept our firearms as they are. They may have superior technology and tactics, but we have numbers and knowing our land. Guerrilla warfare has proven to be much more effective than traditional military fighting for centuries. We, the U.S., have lost to Guerrilla tactics in Africa, Vietnam, Korea, and all the recent events in the Middle East. It might not be perfect, but it does stand a chance.
The problem I have with the whole gun ban is that its like putting a little band aid on a gushing wound . The problem is society and the type of people Americans have become ….. We should be looking at all the unecessary medications we are giving our children and young people to “fix” kids who are “different” … we have created a society where violence is more likely to happen because kids are frustrated and misunderstood ….and really not just kids, but everyone. This is not a country of dreams anymore, but a country of conformity . You can’t do math at all but you love.to paint? Too bad because unless you’re a 1 % that is immediately awesome or has a rich family…you can’t survive on what you love. This is just one of the many things that breeds frustration . Having to be a slave to a mindless job, an abundance of irresponsible parents , …..in your last post someone posted a link about the Swiss …you should read it, because that mindset is what we lost . I grew up knowing from a young age how to be responsible with and around guns…and taught the value of life. This country now lacks that mindset to instill values and responsibility into its people…..we lack the concept of responsibility very much now. Our society breeds violence…..not just with guns….but with knives, fists, bats….you name it. Banning guns won’t reduce violence (make it harder to do mass killings? Maybe). But until society itself Is set on the right path the violence will only continue and get worse.
Not to mention it’s not just about wanting guns for protection, it’s a matter of having the right to do so. More and more rights keep getting taken away in the name of safety. It’s easier to fix then by taking away the problem rather than fixing why a problem exists. But this kind of approach will never last in the long run. It makes me sad that people always cry for the government to fix things, laws be damned, rather than taking the initiative themselves. The government can’t fix our society, only we can if we only take the time to fix it. The first step is getting people to realize that it’s broken….but the more news I watch…the more I keep thinking….good freaking luck with that…..
Hi Ashes – thanks for taking the time to comment! I have to say, I agree with every point that you make. Society is sick, life is centered around performing work for others, everyone is unhappy, and things are spiraling out of control. Unfortunately, I don’t see things ever getting to an “ideal” place, if only because most of us would disagree on what “ideal” means.
A conundrum, to be sure.
It is simple but not the way you have described. 1. Invasion – your correct. 2. People vs Govt – incorrect. Look at your history USSR vs Afghan Rebels, it happens. IT DOESN’T MATTER? Correct, it does not matter for crime prevention because Assault Rifles are NOT the majority firearm used. So why fix whats not broken? Why are you willing to give up any right you have for a FALSE sense of security? IF the Govt. was so interested in saving lives they would: A. Not go to war over everything B. Not make enemies by sanctions on other countries (Iran has been 5 years away from a bomb for about 30 years now, seems like they are cooperating). C. Shrink the military to a defensive force as suggest by the founders, were not to be empire builders D. Spend money on “the people” and health and mental welfare of. E. Have legalizes Medical Marijuana, because if it saves at least one life (like Obama said about guns?) its worth it F. Ended the Drug war as Prohibition is what made big crime (see Alcohol Prohibition) G. Spent money on bridges, roads, renewable energy facilities thus putting all back to work and ensuring lower energy costs. H. Stopped being the largest jailer of its own population. At which point…. people have little to be violent over. OR you skip all of that and answer the question, why did the shooter do it and remove that cause. It was NOT because the gun existed.
The truth is, Lucas, that I agree with 99 percent of what you write there, but I don’t see most of it coming to pass – the empire builders will remain empire builders for the time being. Given that that is the case, it seems reasonable to enact stricter regulations on assault rifles in the meantime.