Jeff Seeley commented on Replying to my pro-gun friends
2012-12-19 04:29:50 -0500
· Flag
Good try. Oversimplification is why we are having this debate in the first place. The answer to this problem is not as easy as you make it seem.
The Second Amendment IS for the purpose of protecting the people from the government. No entity trying to overthrow a government of the people is going to take over because there will be massive casualties (on both sides) and it will have NO support in the aftermath.
Should we ban or highly regulate knives (did you hear about the man in China that killed nearly as many people, including many children, with a knife)?
I dare you to find and post an accurate statistic regarding the number of people saved everyday by the lawful use of a firearm (by police or civilians)!
If we are going to outlaw or highly regulate assault type weapons, then we are headed down a slippery slope, because any semi-automatic rifle can be modified to carry large amounts of ammunition. This means that hunting rifles are the next step. Where does it stop?
I see no problem in requiring a background check for an assault rifle, but in reality the only difference between a semi automatic rilfe and an AR is the design. You can buy a semi-automatic .22 that can carry well over the thirty rounds that the typical AR magazine holds (and they are equally deadly in the wrong hands). Also, just because an individual can pass a background check, they may or may not commit crimes such as in Newtown. So, we really won’t be addressing the issue effectively.
Think about it; why does the government need to do what we as the people who bring up the next generation need to do? Can you look at anyone who has committed an act such as in Newtown, CT or Littleton, CO or Aurora, CO that grew up in a loving household and that had parents who paid attention and did what was best for their children? I don’t think so.
Don’t blame the movies, don’t blame the video game, don’t blame the guns. This is an easy and erroneous way out that will never solve the problem! Regulations and bans did not work to deacrease gun violence in California from ‘94-’04. Teaching love for all lives and teaching resilience and the bigger picture of life is part of the answer. Getting help for someone who cannot normally and rationally handle the stresses of everyday life who might otherwise resort to violence for release or retribution is part of the answer.
Historically, areas where gun regulations are not as strict have less crime involving guns. Areas where guns and gun education are part of the culture will have lower rates of gun violence. And, yes if a police officer was stationed at that elementary school, there would have been very few if any deaths (or perhaps a highly trained teacher).
The Second Amendment IS for the purpose of protecting the people from the government. No entity trying to overthrow a government of the people is going to take over because there will be massive casualties (on both sides) and it will have NO support in the aftermath.
Should we ban or highly regulate knives (did you hear about the man in China that killed nearly as many people, including many children, with a knife)?
I dare you to find and post an accurate statistic regarding the number of people saved everyday by the lawful use of a firearm (by police or civilians)!
If we are going to outlaw or highly regulate assault type weapons, then we are headed down a slippery slope, because any semi-automatic rifle can be modified to carry large amounts of ammunition. This means that hunting rifles are the next step. Where does it stop?
I see no problem in requiring a background check for an assault rifle, but in reality the only difference between a semi automatic rilfe and an AR is the design. You can buy a semi-automatic .22 that can carry well over the thirty rounds that the typical AR magazine holds (and they are equally deadly in the wrong hands). Also, just because an individual can pass a background check, they may or may not commit crimes such as in Newtown. So, we really won’t be addressing the issue effectively.
Think about it; why does the government need to do what we as the people who bring up the next generation need to do? Can you look at anyone who has committed an act such as in Newtown, CT or Littleton, CO or Aurora, CO that grew up in a loving household and that had parents who paid attention and did what was best for their children? I don’t think so.
Don’t blame the movies, don’t blame the video game, don’t blame the guns. This is an easy and erroneous way out that will never solve the problem! Regulations and bans did not work to deacrease gun violence in California from ‘94-’04. Teaching love for all lives and teaching resilience and the bigger picture of life is part of the answer. Getting help for someone who cannot normally and rationally handle the stresses of everyday life who might otherwise resort to violence for release or retribution is part of the answer.
Historically, areas where gun regulations are not as strict have less crime involving guns. Areas where guns and gun education are part of the culture will have lower rates of gun violence. And, yes if a police officer was stationed at that elementary school, there would have been very few if any deaths (or perhaps a highly trained teacher).
