Point taken but self protection is only part of the issue. The bigger issue is limiting freedoms and in this case guns tend to be the issue at hand.
Laws have never stopped criminals from getting what they want. Banning assault rifles would only deter law abiding citizens from purchasing them who would not have used them for crime any ways.
Criminals will still smuggle assault weapons. By limiting gun ownership rights, all that is reduced is freedom for law abiding citizens.
I will concede that a ban would make it more difficult for criminals to get their hands on assault rifles, but then they will revert to hand guns, rifles and shot guns.
I know. When it comes to gun control I’m always arguing for efforts to find ways to inconvenience the criminals as opposed to the law abiding.
What happens then? The guns, which are inanimate objects, are blamed and banned as well? Where is the line drawn?
Many people are already pushing for total gun control.
It doesn’t matter what people push for. This argument is not really useful, though it does push emotional buttons.
It’s a right. While rights are often restricted, such as free speech and demonstrations, they can’t simply be taken away and get past the supreme court.
Inherent danger accompanies humanity. We’ve seen the issue in the news concerning post 9/11 legislation. The gov’t seems to think rules limiting rights is the answer while the majority of citizens feel that freedom is worth possible risks.
This gun control issue, with the example being used, follows the same logic.
I guess the real issue is a debate between a bigger gov’t and more regulations or freedom for this nations citizens.
Law abiding gun owners are not dangerous whether they have a .22 or an M-1 carbon.
Murderers are dangerous with said firearms, knives, bats, wrenches,screw drivers and their own hands.
If danger is the issue, should we start chopping newborn hands off? they could potentially become dangerous.
Again, not really useful arguments from my point of view. Society limits our behavior in lots of ways, such as giving us tickets for speeding or not wearing a seatbelt.
In short, the government steps in and acts as a nanny when the majority of the populace wants it, if it isn’t unconstitutional.
If it could be proven that certain types of weapons resulted in increased violence or increased crime (which is probably doubtful) then perhaps it would make sense to eliminate them.
However, I suspect finding ways to remove guns from the hands of criminals would be much more effective (and difficult) than creating laws that criminals are more than happy to break anyway.
I’m guessing this view is not aligned with Obama’s proposal and that his proposals is really just a way to get buy in from a lot of democrats – in what is mostly a meaningless gesture since criminals don’t seem to care which guns are banned (unless the prices go up).[/quote]
The argument may not be useful to you because you are in Canada. It is an issue in the US though.
Banning gun ownership certainly is meaningless, this is what i’m getting at too.
I’m glad to see most people agree.