posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 06:53 PM
Comparing guns to knives is really dumb; getting shot is nothing like being stabbed. Comparing guns to cars is even dumber.
The ONLY, and I mean ONLY, valid argument for keeping guns, at this point, is the ability to carry out an armed insurrection against a totalitarian
government, should we ever reach such a point.
Unless you are skilled with a knife, chances are cutting or stabbing someone once won't result in a fatality; furthermore, knives don't misfire.
Look, if someone is planning on killing a person, we can either make it EASY for them to do so, or we can make it difficult. Allowing just about
anyone to have access to guns, then, ENABLES them to go on shooting sprees and very effectively kill multitudes of people. A person with a knife can
is much easier to apprehend than a person with a gun.
As for the idiotic "WHY DON'T WE BAN CARS THEN!?!??!?!" idea, please name one incident in recent history where a person went on a driving rampage
with the intent to run over as many people as possible. The fact stands that guns, while having beneficial uses, such as allowing us to hunt
effectively, do more harm than good. There is no arguing this. The question is, however, whether it is wise of us to give up the security of weapons
for the sake of a proposed "safety."
Outlawing guns doesn't make them disappear; in fact, after outlawing guns most countries see a sharp spike in gun violence. This spike, however,
dissipates over time and with it comes a long term solution to gun violence; as guns become harder and harder to obtain, those with criminal
intentions will have to resort to other, less lethal, weapons. The entire process takes a few decades, but it is perhaps a necessary step.
To address the idea of resistance to a totalitarian state, chances are that a pistol won't do much to defer a tank from blowing up your house. The
question, then, becomes whether our soldiers would enforce the orders of a totalitarian regime. The only scenario I could imagine this happening in
would be one in which our economy has collapsed and people are without food; survival comes before just about everything else, and I could see
desperate times calling for people to take up desperate measures, including oppressing their fellow countrymen.
Given such a state, having a gun really isn't going to do much to help your chances of survival; this isn't 300 or the Alamo; if the government
wants to enforce martial law, civilian weaponry will easily be outgunned.
Regardless, it makes little sense for our government to want to become tyrannical; we are not a savage people, with the exception of a few, nor do we
have a history of rising up against our governments actions. If the last 11 years have proven anything, it is that we Americans are complacent and
uninterested in the actions of our government. They don't NEED our guns, but it's not like taking our guns would accomplish much anyways.
Another solution to the gun violence problem, and perhaps better one at that, would be to train and arm the entire citizenry, with the exception, of
course, of those with a history of violence or mental instability. When everyone has a gun, the gun violence drops. Why? Because arms give people an
advantage over those without, or with lesser, arms. When the playing field is even, then, the chance of death suddenly skyrockets, and most people
value their own lives too much to risk death by getting into an armed altercation over money or sex. Will this solution stop those hellbent on
carrying out a shooting spree? Maybe; trying to massacre a crowd of armed people alone is a rather futile endeavor.