I posted the following in another thread but I'll post it again in here:

I can't help but shake my head at all these people talking about how everyone should have the right to be armed and gun control is stupid. I mean, if somebody sneaks up behind you, pulls out a gun, and says "give me all your money or I'll kill you," what are you gonna do? Pull out your own gun and shoot him before he can pull the trigger? Or are you going to always have your gun loaded, cocked, and in your hand? (although I can't imagine someone pulling a gun on you if that were the case)

I can understand why it might make someone feel safer to have a gun on them when they feel like they are in a dangerous place, but, if you stop and think about it logically, you'd be a lot safer if the government made a concerted effort to rid the country of as many firearms as possible (maybe they could use the ridiculous amount of funds spent on the war on drugs, as well as the draconian punishments given to users/dealers, to instead prevent the sale of guns). The bottom line is that making it legal to purchase firearms, even if it's only legal for certain qualified individuals, makes it easier for criminals, or potential criminals, to get a hold of them (think about all the money unscrupulous people can make by buying guns legally and selling them on the black market).

I mean, I'm no criminal and I don't know any personally so I can't say for sure, but I would guess that the majority of guns used in violent crimes were either purchased legally, or purchased from someone who purchased it legally, or stolen from someone who purchased it legally, or purchased from someone who purchased it from someone who purchased it from someone legally, etc. If we made it completely illegal for anybody to purchase guns, I don't see how you can argue against the fact that it would definitely make it more difficult for a criminal to procure one.

To put it simply, instead of thinking "I should be allowed to carry a gun just in case some dude on the street pulls one out on me," you should instead think "if I'm allowed to carry a gun, there's a MUCH greater chance of some dude on the street pulling one out on me," and like I said earlier, unless you've got it locked, loaded and in your hand at all times, that gun isn't going to do you much good in such a situation.




That's the end of what I posted in another thread, but I'd like to respond specifically to what a couple of you said. A lot of you are saying that it's a good idea for people to be armed just in case they become the subject of "tyranny" so they can fight back. Well, I'd much rather trust the government officials we elect to not be tyrannical than allow people to take things into their own hands whenever they see fit. I mean, if you allow people to have firearms to fight back against the government when they think they're being mistreated, how could you be upset or surprised if, say, a group of neo-nazis goes and kills a bunch of government officials in a coup d'etat because they perceive the government as being tryannical? After all, you've sent the message that the populace should be armed and ready to fight back against tyranny. It's clearly more sensible to keep guns out of civilians hands and let the government (who represent our collective interests as we vote them in) do its job than to let everyone form their own militias.

Another thing to keep in mind when discussing the issue of gun control is that statistics regarding guns and their effect on society can be used to support either side of the debate depending on how you look at them. Some of you have said statistics prove that looser gun laws equal less crime but, according to statistics, Japan has one of the lowest crime (and murder) rates in the world, and also one of the strictest gun control policies in the world. Canada, a country relatively similar to the U.S. culturally, has a significantly lower amount of violent crime (less than half) than the U.S. which can be attributed to its much stricter gun policies. Another statistical example is Switzerland, which has a significantly higher murder rate than other Central and Western European countries, and is well-known for it liberal gun laws (there's a firearm for about every 3 people). The point is that there are so many other factors affecting crime rates that it's hard to come to a valid conclusion as to what effect gun laws have on them. Throwing around statistics is not necessarily the best way to prove your argument.

I'll end by responding to the argument I hear most from gun rights advocates that just doesn't hold water. Many of those people say that the best way to reduce gun-related crime is by arming as many of the potential victims as possible, so potential criminals would be deterred. Using the logic that the best way to curb gun violence is by having everyone armed, the United States shouldn't stop Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or any other country from having nuclear weapons because, after all, the best way to avoid a nuclear holocaust is if every country has nuclear weapons. That way, they can all "protect themselves." Somehow I don't think all the gun-toting red-staters that cling so tightly to the 2nd Amendment would be alright with such a policy.