Mr Khan said:
And what threatens Ms Smith to the degree that she needs high levels of continuous fire? The only thing that line of thought could lead into is the line that everyone needs all kinds of weapons for fear that somebody else could have them, and then there goes society. I'm willing to concede that, in the short term and before there is a viable alternative, some people may need some sort of firearm, but nothing more than what is necessary to ward off an intruder or at least keep them pinned down until the police can arrive. Hell, i'd even be willing to concede matters of target practice, but even then, high-capacity clips have no good reason for existence. Things which are benevolent or benign are welcome in free societies. Things inherently malignant are not. |
As far as I'm concerned, there is a sweet spot betwee gun rights and gun control, and we ought to find it. As any gun advocate will argue, countries with very lower gun ownership rates and very strict gun control laws can have just as much violent crime as America. Gun control won't solve corrupt police forces (Russia, Brazil) and sometimes too much of it can lead to people just using other things to kill (Cuba). That being said, there are plenty of countries out there, such as Australia, Canada and Western Europe, that have moderate gun control laws, moderate rates of gun ownership, and also manage to have much lower violent crime rates. The US really needs to look at these other countries, and conduct it's own studies, to see just how affective certain gun control laws can be, and if they are effective they should be implemented.
