| Viper1 said: Considering your response, I must suggest that is again you who are missing the point. If you banned guns in the US, there would still be gun related homicides because crimminals don't obey the law...otherwise they wouldn't kill anybody to begin with. And you completely missed the drug point. Did banning drugs in the US prevent people from being able to obtain drugs? Now swap out the word drugs with guns and you'd have the same question posed after a gun ban. Did banning 'drugs' prevent people from being able to obtain 'drugs'? |
Comparing people's desire to obtain substances they are addicted to to guns seems quite far fetched to me. And that banning guns would not mean an end to gun-related crimes is so obvious nobody would claim the opposite. It would of course only lead to fewer such crimes, which I consider a step forward. I think that would make more sense than to hope for that legendary "armed law-abiding citizen" who stops the homicidal maniac with the gun he always wears. Somehow that mysterical superhero just never turns up when we need him, does he? But let's be fair, he was probably simply too late, because he obviously had to abide by the speed limit... 
Or maybe it was James Holmes himself, who from all we know so far was a perfectly "law-abiding citizen" until he turned out to have a rather dark side?
Anyway, I realize that there is no point in discussing banning guns in America. If they really want guns allowed (and they obviously do) - let them have them. But maybe they should still think about slightly changing their laws. If they want a weapon to defend themselves, for example against burglars, fine. But they don't need to have several weapons for that, including automatic machine guns with huge magazines etc. I'm sure even legendary superhero "armed law-abiding citizen" wouldn't carry more than a single small non-automatic gun in his everyday life.
