posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 07:18 PM
Originally posted by CB328
Taking guns from law abiding citizens would raise the murder rate off the charts
When you shrink the supply of guns it will be harder for criminals to get them too, obviously. It doesn't matter if they are buying them legally, or
buying them illegally.
Why aren't there any gangsters shooting people with RPG's and flame throwers? According to gun psycho logic every criminal should have them because
they will have everything that's banned right?
I think the valid counter argument is that someone intent on murder will use what is most easily accessible to them. RPGs and flame throwers are less
easily accessible than your over-the-counter firearm. If we were to ban guns completely, then from a percentage of the whole, some other method of
murder would become the predominant one (such as knives).
All that being said, the true question is would banning guns create less murder overall? It could, but in doing so it deteriorates one of the reasons
for the 2nd Amendment and that is an inherent protection of the citizen from a tyrannical government and the ability to forcibly, if necessary, affect
change in the governing body of said government through revolution.
This doesn't mean that violent revolution is always the best course of action, nor do I necessarily condone violent revolution. But for the purpose of
historical and theoretical political discussion and argument, it is certainly a valid argument for the retention of 2nd amendment rights. Allow me to
pose a question, if the ability to bear arms is seded only to a minute percentage of the population in the form of the governing elite, then what
chance would a country's citizens truly have if faced with unbearable tyranny or abuse of power?
Allow me to also answer the question: Zero.
edit on 31-12-2012 by Fiscal because: Darn you autocorrect.
edit on 31-12-2012 by
Fiscal because: OCD