Currently Online 
| Azzanation said: If your method is to take something away to solve an issue than its a fail on our behalf. How about solve the issue that causes it rather than give the government more control. As I have witnessed first hand in this country, give the government an inch, they take a mile. We lost all rights to a lot of things. And if the USA still have gun massacres after implying laws than expect them to keep taking until there is nothing left to take. I don't agree with taking something away from people especially since the majority has done nothing wrong with guns apart from some bad eggs. |
Sorry to bust in but I think one major reason for this entire argument is that you believe the problem was binary, when it's actually not. This is not a question of 'either this or that', it's rather a spectrum. Having stricter gun laws does not automatically mean that the government takes anything away from you. It also doesn't mean that suddenly these massacres vanish over night. But it's a first step to decrease the chances of such massacres. That's what this is about. We all know and agree that bad things can happen anytime anywhere, but what anti-gunners simply want is to decrease the chances. This is really not that hard to grasp.
If laws were stricter the amount of guns will decrease slowly. Again, this is not binary, so it won't happen over night, but we're talking about slow processes that may take several years of time. And then next, with fewer guns in the wild, chances will logically decrease that guns will be violated and therefore fewer people will die unnecessary deaths. Everybody would be safer in general. Wouldn't you want that, too?
