Currently Online 
| JWeinCom said: ill reduce the amount of rape that happens. Same principle here. Won't eliminate it completely, but could very well limit these types of incidents. Take the recent shooting. We have a guy with mental problems who had access to his mom's guns in the house. So, what if there weren't guns in the house. Would he have been able to obtain them through illegitimate means? Without people who know him getting suspicious? Stricter gun control would have certainly made the weapons harder to maintain, and the harder it is to get from idea to action the less likely it is to happen. |
Three things:
1. It is illegal to kill people, just like rape is illegal. Do we ban penises? Of course no, lol.
2. The argument on the other side is a matter of sacrifice not giving us enough in return and will give us more trouble in the long run. You mentioned rape, well the United States has quite an average rape per 100,000 in the list of first-world countries, less than Australia and Britain. I'd think it is because we have weapons to protect ourselves, not only guns, but other weapons as well, some very preventative. However; the biggest issue is sacrificing something which protects us even further, on a sociological level, from a tyrannical government and the entire premise of why the Second Amendment exists, explicitly.
3. Connecticut already has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. If "assault weapons" are banned there would be no change, because "assault weapons" is a coined term to mean all weapons made from modern material with certain safety (yes, safety - such as easier control) features. There are other weapons that would be just as effective. Even more troublesome is that legal owners of these weapons will be affected, and they will lose their right to self-defense, without any proper solution to the homicide crime.
If stricter laws prevent these occurances then we would not have noticed Breivik's killing last year, and the one in Germany in 2009 by that teenager. Stricter laws do very little other than impose new problems on the people. One either stands for liberty and a free-society or one stands against liberty and for a nanny states (or even worse - a totalitarian state.) The more we allow the federal government into our lives, the more power they are to weasel even further into our lives and the more easily they can destroy our lives. States are almost certainly never interested in the security of their people as much as the people are, and this is substantiated by history.
