Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
That's the problem with politicians. They have three reasons for making laws that piss off us law-abiding, gun-owning citizens.
1) Politicians aren't normal people.
However, many of them still own guns, from Vice Presidents, to Chief Justices of the Supreme Court.
The ones making the restrictive laws about lab equipment, et cetera, do not seem to be the same ones who are restricting guns.
However, the problem that politicians are not their constitutients is significant. It is, however, not very avoidable. It is enheartening that there is still empathy in this world for people not like oneself, as demonstrated by such famous actions as the ACLU's defence of those damn Nazis.
Quote:
2) If guns are outlawed, criminals will still have them. They are, after all, criminals.
Yet, we still have laws. To say that criminals will get around laws is saying that we might as well hope that everyone is a nice, understanding individual, and not have laws. Yes, law enforcement is not omnipotent. Get over it, and don't try to exaggerate it. Laws, generally, are more effective than not. Just look Japan, for instance. They have more sword deaths than gun deaths. Is this because everyone just prefers swords?
No, laws don't stop bad things from happening entirely. But they stop a lot of instances for so much money to be put into enforcing them.
Guns don't kill people, sure. But they sure as hell make it a whole lot easier. Just look at the gun deaths that come from accidental shootings (that just happen to outnumber the gun deaths that come from lawfully defending one's home).
Also, I do not think, say, Bush is a "socialist peace-at-any-cost hippie pansy-ass politician."
Quote:
3) Without guns, we are powerless.
Now this, is a good reason. But, are you so cynical as to believe that the US functions just like every other backwater?
I counter with the cynicism that should you be right, there's no one with "bigger toys" to put down their citizens than the US. If they
really want to do it, there's no way to put the constitution back in place after they've declared "Emergency Powers."
Additionally, I was under the impression that, in Iraq, each household was allowed to have an AK or similar. Is this just a recent (i.e. post-O:IF) law (meaning all these militants, warlords, AKs, and RPGs have just shown up over night), or have these weapons and trained militants (e.g. those who served their compulsory military service in Iraq) been there all along?
Quote:
Britain, Australia, and other nations with similar restrictive gun laws are going the way of 1984/Brave New World/ARM from Man-Kzin Wars. And there are those in America who would see us do the same.
I can't comment for other countries, but in the US I say this is unfortunately true. Problem is, the ones who would see us go the same way, don't seem to be the ones restricting gun use. The ones who had the Patriot Act ready to go at a moment's notice wasn't the Dems who made the Brady Bill, it was the staunch Republicans, led by none other than a Texan.
Quote:
My question for the debate was, are we really worse off without the guns?
My own opinion: Heck yes. Viva la firepower.
I like reason three, but your generalizations just don't seem to pan out.