posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:23 PM
A full gun ban for all..from citizen, to cop, etc would indeed remove the gun violence...
Thing is, if guns are illegal in all forms, then there are no bullets to be found (maybe some black market stuff).
So, it would work..and the argument of well people will just use knifes instead.
Sure..but you don't get mass murders from knife wielding psychos..you might get one or two if he is a near ninja..thats about it..no more
Just stating the simple fact..don't think you know my stance on gun control by me making a honest observation.
The question is, is loss of life acceptable when enforcing a constitutional right? If you knew flat out your son/daughter/mother/father would be
alive today had there been a gun ban, would you be for gun bans, or would you accept the loss of your loved one as collateral damage that is necessary
to keep an ideal?
Don't mean to bring it to the "think about the children" level, but it is applicable in this hypothetical...if there was a gun ban, and bullets
were about as easy to come by as crack (not to mention the price per bullet and gun), would aurora or sandy have been that way? could that much damage
have been done with someone holding a switchblade? How many family members mourn today because of a ideal people scream about?
There is no right or wrong way to consider these questions...personally I see both sides of the argument and am neutral..just when arguing, don't
forget there is another very valid side to this debate...your not 100% right or wrong when speaking your mind on this subject.