posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 01:16 PM
Originally posted by bottleslingguy
Originally posted by HairlessApe
I find it hilarious that pro-gun folk are almost always anti-pitbull folk.
I am pro-gun yet I am anti-BSL (breed specific laws) and LOVE pitbulls and bully breeds. So what does that say for your theory? No matter what you
take away from the law abiding gun owners, the law breaking ones will still get the illegal weapons. How is restricting law abiders going to stop law
breakers? How does that actually work in stopping crimes? Surely if a pitbull was attacking me I would want a pitbull to defend me (or a Rotty).
..You just proved my point, I think?
As I said, I find that standpoint utterly hilarious. If you spent half the time you spend researching on gun control on dog breeds instead, you'd find
that "bad dogs" don't exist in the form of a breed of dogs, they're simply the product of neglectful owners. I'm also not worried about criminals
getting guns. I understand that MOST criminals who really want them will still be able to obtain them. That's why we have law enforcement. I'm
worried about irresponsible law abiding citizens. Not because they intent to harm me, but because - as I stated - they're irresponsible. I'm pro gun
control. That doesn't mean I want to take away everyone's gun, I just want Federal laws that don't allow any Joe Schmoe to obtain one without going
through a test. Something like a psychological evaluation and a gun safety course that has to be taken annually. It doesn't have to be those things,
but what we have today isn't cutting it.
If I REALLY wanted a gun, (and I have thought on it) I'd gladly prove I'm capable of handling one responsibly.
If you can't do that, I don't think you deserve a gun. I don't mean you specifically, I mean civilians in general.
Perhaps that would work for dog owners of "potentially dangerous breeds" as well
edit on 6-1-2013 by HairlessApe because: spellcheck