- 6,589
- 2,164
- Joined
- May 22, 2008
[COLOR=#red]First things first, check your emotions at the door. Critical decisions need not be made primarily based on emotion.
Seems like right after every mass shooting instead of focusing on the tragedy in and of itself, the talking heads start speaking about "gun control", and how all firearms need to be banned and how evil they are. So with that being said let's look at this issue from a more logical perspective. By the end of this writeup I highly doubt anybody will change their views, nevertheless both sides need to be heard.
Fact:
There are roughly 200 million firearms that are LEGALLY privately owned by American citizens. This does not include weapons that are illegally obtained and sold on the criminal market. Those figures do not include weapons that are fully automatic, and or not compliant with the National Firearm Act (NFA). What does this mean? I'll explain below...
If somehow citizens were required to turn in their firearms because they are obligated to do so by law that means that criminals who are basically individuals who decided to make a career out of not obeying laws will still have their weapons which means the people who are the most likely to commit a potentially deadly or grave assault would still be armed. Criminals knowing that the good and law abiding citizens have more than likely turned in their firearms would be more likely to commit offenses now that the deterrent of self defense has been removed. How this makes America a safer place escapes me.
Scenario:
You are at home with your family enjoying the holiday season. An armed offender brazenly and violently breaks into your home. What do you do? You will not be able to call the police in time. Forget about getting a golf club or baseball bat...throwing a pair of DS Foamposite Ones will be just as futile. Here's the short answer...you do WHATEVER he says in order to preserve your life and your family. Your family has been violated and you the man and protector can only watch helplessly. I can almost GUARANTEE even the staunchest anti-gun person would use a firearm in defense if one were available. If not you are lying to yourself OR you are the perfect victim...akin to an unprotected flock of sheep amidst a pack of wolves.
"Assault" Rifles:
"There is no need for assault weapons with their multi-round "clips" and their evil features. They belong in war". This is a sentiment echoed by many. This is an example of sensationalism at its best. Yes true these firearms have capacities of 30 or more rounds in some cases. But that in and of itself is not what makes them deadly...it is the intent of the shooter that makes any firearm deadly. A determined sicko can cause just as much havoc with a lower capacity handgun...evidenced by Cho at Virginia Tech who killed 30+ people with handguns that only had 10 round magazines. IF it's a defenseless soft target such as schools or malls it really doesn't matter what the shooter is using.
Soft Targets and What Really Needs To Be Done To Make America Safer:
I am all about stricter background checks. As a matter of fact two of my last three gun purchases required a longer background check than usual. I was not upset one bit, as a matter of fact I agree that there should be more in the way of background checks. I know I'm a law abiding citizen so there is nothing to hide...take two weeks if need be.
Now let's discuss soft targets. If you notice almost all the individuals that committed these mass killing have done so against soft targets. Soft targets are individuals,groups, or places that are likely not to be defended and offer little to no resistance. Example, an elementary school is a soft target...a police station is a hard target. Have you EVER heard of a shooter attacking a police station? The answer is no, and this is because the shooter know these places will be well defended and offer much in the way of resistance. This also shows that these shooters are disturbed but not stupid. They know what they can get away with.
To make America safer we must realize that we are in an era where we must be better defended and more resistant. We must have more protective resources in our schools and workplace. Criminals know the law, they just don't follow them...they know the places where concealed carry is prohibited and these are prime targets of opportunity. It's a different world and we must adjust...Similar to how we had to adjust with air travel after 9-11. Sure there are some inconveniences, but these are required for overall safety.
Conclusion:
So indirectly I ask the legislation not to take my right/privilege to protect my family and my home based on the atrocities perpetrated by a relative few disturbed individuals. It's a knee-jerk emotional response that will not make our country safer. The Loughners, the Chos, and the Lanzas are not the face of law abiding citizens who own guns for defense, sport, and hunting. [/COLOR]
Seems like right after every mass shooting instead of focusing on the tragedy in and of itself, the talking heads start speaking about "gun control", and how all firearms need to be banned and how evil they are. So with that being said let's look at this issue from a more logical perspective. By the end of this writeup I highly doubt anybody will change their views, nevertheless both sides need to be heard.
Fact:
There are roughly 200 million firearms that are LEGALLY privately owned by American citizens. This does not include weapons that are illegally obtained and sold on the criminal market. Those figures do not include weapons that are fully automatic, and or not compliant with the National Firearm Act (NFA). What does this mean? I'll explain below...
If somehow citizens were required to turn in their firearms because they are obligated to do so by law that means that criminals who are basically individuals who decided to make a career out of not obeying laws will still have their weapons which means the people who are the most likely to commit a potentially deadly or grave assault would still be armed. Criminals knowing that the good and law abiding citizens have more than likely turned in their firearms would be more likely to commit offenses now that the deterrent of self defense has been removed. How this makes America a safer place escapes me.
Scenario:
You are at home with your family enjoying the holiday season. An armed offender brazenly and violently breaks into your home. What do you do? You will not be able to call the police in time. Forget about getting a golf club or baseball bat...throwing a pair of DS Foamposite Ones will be just as futile. Here's the short answer...you do WHATEVER he says in order to preserve your life and your family. Your family has been violated and you the man and protector can only watch helplessly. I can almost GUARANTEE even the staunchest anti-gun person would use a firearm in defense if one were available. If not you are lying to yourself OR you are the perfect victim...akin to an unprotected flock of sheep amidst a pack of wolves.
"Assault" Rifles:
"There is no need for assault weapons with their multi-round "clips" and their evil features. They belong in war". This is a sentiment echoed by many. This is an example of sensationalism at its best. Yes true these firearms have capacities of 30 or more rounds in some cases. But that in and of itself is not what makes them deadly...it is the intent of the shooter that makes any firearm deadly. A determined sicko can cause just as much havoc with a lower capacity handgun...evidenced by Cho at Virginia Tech who killed 30+ people with handguns that only had 10 round magazines. IF it's a defenseless soft target such as schools or malls it really doesn't matter what the shooter is using.
Soft Targets and What Really Needs To Be Done To Make America Safer:
I am all about stricter background checks. As a matter of fact two of my last three gun purchases required a longer background check than usual. I was not upset one bit, as a matter of fact I agree that there should be more in the way of background checks. I know I'm a law abiding citizen so there is nothing to hide...take two weeks if need be.
Now let's discuss soft targets. If you notice almost all the individuals that committed these mass killing have done so against soft targets. Soft targets are individuals,groups, or places that are likely not to be defended and offer little to no resistance. Example, an elementary school is a soft target...a police station is a hard target. Have you EVER heard of a shooter attacking a police station? The answer is no, and this is because the shooter know these places will be well defended and offer much in the way of resistance. This also shows that these shooters are disturbed but not stupid. They know what they can get away with.
To make America safer we must realize that we are in an era where we must be better defended and more resistant. We must have more protective resources in our schools and workplace. Criminals know the law, they just don't follow them...they know the places where concealed carry is prohibited and these are prime targets of opportunity. It's a different world and we must adjust...Similar to how we had to adjust with air travel after 9-11. Sure there are some inconveniences, but these are required for overall safety.
Conclusion:
So indirectly I ask the legislation not to take my right/privilege to protect my family and my home based on the atrocities perpetrated by a relative few disturbed individuals. It's a knee-jerk emotional response that will not make our country safer. The Loughners, the Chos, and the Lanzas are not the face of law abiding citizens who own guns for defense, sport, and hunting. [/COLOR]
Last edited:
