posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 04:54 AM
Totally agree wit hthe OP on this.
In australia we had the port arthur massacre (staged massacre) allowing guns to be taken, and it didn't do anything to make the place safe. All it
did was make criminals who don't abide by the laws have weapons while taking the guns from those who do have guns for legit reasons and for defending
It's just another attempt at grabbing power. They are testing you and poking at your defenses to see where you are weak. Don't budge.
If you say yes to anything, they will see that as a sign of weakness and like a pushy door salesman, who see his persuasion actually working, will
push harder and harder for more things until he reaches his limit on how far he can take it.
To critics of gun owners who just want to keep their rights, maturity has nothing to do with it. Your rights should exist regardless of if a
government acknowledges them or not. In principle if you attack someone with intent to kill, you should be allowed to defend yourself. Different
people have different ideas about what defence is. But if a person can defend himself the criminal will see the increased risk and be deterred from
trying anything against the person they intend to rob steal or kill. And what you get is an even playing field. ("armed robber" vs "armed defender
of property" instead of "robber who has illegally acquired weapons" vs "defender who must be held at gunpoint")
We all know that nukes by their very nature are weapons of mass destruction and we would feel better off if these had never existed, but the reality
is they do exist and we have to understand that it would be unreasonable to truly disarm them all so long as the threat of people who might secretly
have them uses it and attacks with intent to just murder people. (as opposed to being forced into having it for defence during say a war which you
have no choice but to fight in as a way to defend the land or the people) The even-playing-field was MAD (mutually assured destruction) and it
resulted in both sides actually not being able to prevent their deaths however, the "threat of dying" was what made people too scared to actually
use it. It deterred both from trying to use them because the risk was too great.
Same applies with any weapons. If you have even a small reason to believe a criminal; who doesn't hand in their guns to the government and who has
acquired theirs illegally, will possess them, ..then it stands to reason that a person who isn't a criminal or murderer and who does follow
laws, should also be allowed to have one. It's not about saying "killing is justified" or that "life isn't precious", just that it's better to
put innocent people and criminals on an "even playing field" to create the deterrent for the criminal so he will think twice about trying anything,
just as MAD forced both sides to have to think twice about using their nukes.
A non-violent person doesn't have to condone the usage of guns to understand why the right to have them is still better than not having a right to
have them. You can still say: "I personally abhor violent means to solving problems" but.."yet I support the right for a person to defend
If a criminal uses martial arts training to snap your neck.
You should be allowed to use it for self-defence.
If a criminal uses knives to stab.
You should be allowed to carry a knife to deter that attacker.
If a criminal uses a club to bash.
You should be able to club them back.
Do you understand the principle? It's not really about the weapon. It's the "right to defend" yourself.
If we still used swords and guns hadn't been invented yet, you could still use this same argument and it would make sense. Stop focusing on the guns
(the type of weapon) themselves. Start understanding the principles behind it and why it isn't fair to expect people to not be allowed to defend
themselves and give up their rights based on some irrational emotions they feel about the object used by criminals.
[edit on 4-2-2009 by Snake Plisskin]