posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 12:33 AM
First I would like to apologize for my grammar. English has never been my strong suit growing up but, I really wanted to share my opinion.
I think there should be a combination of law and technology in terms of this gun control argument.
The difference between a gun and a weapon is in how it is used. You also have to factor in skill and ability into the lethality of any object in terms
of its killing potential. I think that objects with killing potential should be divided by the number of people that could potentially be killed and
licensed accordingly. We have to realize that there is a difference between people and weapons that can kill en mass and those who can simply injure
Can we truly say that it is better to have 20 injured vs say 5 dead and 15 injured? That comes down to an argument of personal philosophy in the end.
It is also important to think of the difference between say 50 people killed all at once vs 50 people killed over a week, month, or year.
If someone wants to injure and/or kill someone bad enough Im sure that they will find a way to do it one way or another and this is true but, the fact
that there are weapons out there that give anyone an advantage in the ability to kill is a grave danger to society as a whole. Out of the commonly
available weapons, guns top the list in capability of killing considering the range at which people can be targeted, the amount of people that can be
struck within a given amount of time, and the fact that guns can practically only be fought with something of equal or stronger power. Sure skill can
can make weapons such as bows, blades, or bludgeoning weapons more effective in killing but, they all lack the raw largely overwhelming power of guns.
Mass murders by fire or say drowning are murders that youd have to have the targeted people in the right place at the right time and hope that there
arnt extinguishers or vents, or what not to limit the causality number. Going down to using choking to kill someone, besides chemical agents, I havnt
heard of a killer committing mass choking.
Guns have their use in society and with people who can use them responsibly. I agree with this whole heartily but, I think that even the most sane
people can be led to mass violence given the right circumstances.
Perhaps to curve this technology should be implemented into every gun so that only the registered owners can use them. Smart gun technology exists in
some forms and I think it is really worth researching. Guns could be made in the future to only fire a certain amount bullets for example. Perhaps
even guns could be made so that they can read vital signs for mental distress, instability, or mood so that they can only be used for defense and
never for offense. They could also be made to analyze targets so they can only kill game or suspects for crimes. All possibilities while not violating
the 2nd amendment except in spirit.
The 2nd amendment should still exist but freedoms arnt there to be abuse them. Freedoms make this country great but, people must use these freedoms
responsibly so that we can co-exist as a society. Just because you can do this or that or possess this or that dosnt mean that you have to or
Thanks for listening to my thoughts,
P.S. - I can understand guns for self defense or home security but, for those who think that they stand a chance to protect themselves from a
NWO/government takeover, considering the arsenal of RPGs, bombs, missiles, anti-tank/aircraft, laser, chemical, biological, radio-logical, nuclear
weapons let alone all the other weapons that exist that we dont even know about, I dont think that we stand much of a chance of a serious effort by
said powers. I respect that you may simply want to get taken down after a "fight" but, Id be more concerned about hiding and surviving if I was
fighting against TPTB. ...Then came the A-Bomb