Quote by MrNudiePants
Did you actually read the story I linked to?
Ed Head, a firearms instructor in Arizona who spent 24 years with the U.S. Border Patrol, recently displayed an array of weapons considered "assault rifles" that are similar to those recovered in Mexico, but are unavailable for sale in the U.S.
Yes, I read it. And I still maintain that I don't find the opinions of Ed Head, the firearms instructor anymore credible then the anonymous "ATF spokeswoman" or FoxNews.
Quote by MrNudiePants
If someone were to propose a law that would absolutely shut off all access criminals have to firearms, then I would consider THAT law for it's merits and drawbacks. If I found that law to be onerous in it's restrictions on law-abiding citizens, then I would oppose it. It's hard for anyone not an American citizen to grasp how highly we value our citizenship, and how much worth we place on our freedoms. With enough legislation, and enough spending, I'm sure we could make the country a safer place for everyone. We would all have our safe little rubber rooms to live in, and our safe little rubber suits to wear if we ever had to venture outside our rubber rooms. We wouldn't be allowed to own CARS... Everyone KNOWS how dangerous cars are. Instead, our society would have to be rebuilt so that everything would be within walking distance. We wouldn't be allowed to fly - planes can crash. We wouldn't be allowed to see each other, or speak to each other, because THAT might lead to a confrontation, and confrontations might lead to fights, which cause injuries... Can you see where I'm going with this?
This is an extremist viewpoint. You can be assured that the rest of the non-gun-owning modern world is not living in a rubber room, wearing a rubber suit. Ok, except for maybe certain rubber-fetish types on Lush.com.
Quote by MrNudiePants
Sure, there are some facets of our society that are unsafe. Driving, flying, riding horseback, having a beer, playing darts... owning firearms. But I'll happily live with the risk, if it means I get to enjoy the freedoms that abound. Sure, maybe I'll fall off that mountain and break a leg, or break my neck. But that's a risk I'm willing to take. There's an off chance that a criminal might get hold of a firearm. More of a surety, matter of fact. But imagine the world if you could wave your magic wand and *poof* away all firearms of every kind. Criminals prey on the weak. Successful criminals study their targets for a time, and only strike when they're sure of success. They target the elderly, the unaware, the defenseless. If law-abiding citizens were not allowed to own arms for self-defense, then brute force would be king. Anyone that was stronger, faster, or more physically able would be able to impose his will upon the weaker ones at will. Imagine the brutality that would ensue.
I know you argue that if citizens were not allowed to own guns for self defence, than brute force would tear society apart, creating criminal anarchy. Since we are living on the same continent, it's difficult for me to understand how your non-gun-owning neighbours to the north are able to live in relative peace and safety using this exact social model. Obviously our histories and influences are very different, but we have not descended into National Geographic style battles of predator and prey where the weak are brutalized because they can't defend themselves. Perhaps it is indeed, as you positioned earlier, that the criminals of the world all migrate to the US, thereby causing a natural imbalance? Hmm.. I wonder if the criminals are moving to the US because they know they will have easy access to guns!! LOL.. Joking!
Quote by MrNudiePants
I owe it to my family to protect them to the best of my ability, no matter where we go, no matter what we're doing. Prison interviews with FBI agents highlight that the main thing that will deter a criminal from attacking a particular victim is if he thinks that victim is armed. Like it or not, privately owned arms in law-abiding hands do more to combat crime than all the detectives on patrol. Cops are really good at catching criminals. But until they come pocket-sized, so I can carry one around with me everywhere I go, I have to make do with whatever means of self-defense I can legally carry.
As Xuani said earlier, I can understand the need to have this kind of defensive safeguard if you are living in a society where everyone else is armed. If I moved to crime-ridden area of the US tomorrow, you can bet I would end up wanting a gun too. But that's because I don't trust anyone, because the legislation has made guns too available (to both citizens and criminals). Yes, it's one thing to own a gun legally, but that leads to secondary private sales and gun shows where in 33 states there is a smorgasbord of weapons available to anyone (the stats around this are verified through every credible source I reviewed online, so this can't just be waved away as saying 'it doesn't happen'). It's impossible to control who can get a gun.
A flooded market just makes it easier to obtain what you're looking for in illegal ways. It's like saying sure, you can buy cocaine if you're really looking for it, but you still need the right contacts and connections. Those contacts are a lot easier to make if you live in Columbia than if you live in Minnesota (speaking comparatively).
I equate weapons with weapons, that is not delusional. I think we should make it difficult to make handguns, or any gun for that matter, impossible for criminals to get them. I didn't say anything of the kind, sounds like you may be delusional or trying to put words in my mouth as usual. I just don't think taking guns away from EVERYONE is the way to go. "You people", here we go with your famous generalizations ... "you people", the anti-gunners, wish to abolish handguns. This will not change criminals committing violent crimes, only disarming those who would defend themselves from them. You have to change the killer, not the weapon.
