Gun Control

[blaa]

Well that was a silly post.
Your country has tanks, nuclear bombs, robots and you say if you have a revolver you are safe from the government. Ok!
A robber jumps you in the street. No worries! You have a semi-automatic pistol and you will defend yourself. Oops, the robber has a gun too. No worries! You are faster and you kill him/her. Noone takes your wallet.

By the way, I think this "should you be able to buy weapons from supermarkets" is a totally dumb thing to argue about. It's not a real problem, it's like gay marriage - a pseudo problem.

[Satan666]

In a perfect world, weapons of this nature would not be needed. Problem is, without the ability to arm oneself, you are open to danger. Danger from criminals, the insane, evil and perhaps even your own government. The right to bear arms is not a negotiable concept. It is an inherit right that is ours and our forefathers simply pinned it into the constitution as a matter of fact. If you take away that right, you take away everything. What I mean is simple. If you destroy ONE right, then none have meaning. you may as well say you cannot have air, food or water. Taking away one freedom is a path to totally stripping all freedoms. It becomes too easy. what next? Freedom of religion? It is too dangerous for us to have different religions as most wars are fought about whose god is better. Make everyone believe the same and POOF! you cut out most wars. Free speech? Well that has to go too. People with different opinions start the bulk of the rest of the wars that religion didnt cause. If we all think and say the same things then POOF! there goes another chunk of wars. Wake up America, our thinly held on to rights are being torn away.

Yes I agree that if you take one right away that it makes people wonder if the other rights are important enough to stay standing. But you other right we are forgetting is the victims of these shootings (both mass and criminal shootings). They all had the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. By neglecting the fact there are weapons that can cause massive damage in a short amount of time (in other words lots of death and injury) we are saying that the criminals have more of a right to kill then the victims have to live. And I will give the argument that if someone good was allowed to be armed and stop the person from turning a shooting to a mass shooting then that would be worth having everyone armed just as well. This in theory does hold ground, like the saying goes: Don't bring a knife to a gun fight. But then how can we spot the good ones from the bad? How would we say random 25 year old man walking down the street is a well adjusted responsible gun owner and not just someone on the way to kill someone or a gang member? I admit i am a pessimist and I look for the worst and hope for the best.

I look at a situation from 11 months ago, Trayvon Martin in Florida. The Owner of the gun by all accounts was a good person and responsible. He saw what he though to be a suspicous person and called 911 and reported it. When the person on the line told him to no engage and if he wanted to just keep an eye on Trayvon he did the opposite. Taking the law into his hand he ran up and confronted the young man with led to a struggle and the eventual shot to the chest. At this moment they haven't ruled officially what will happen but information (whether true or just someone creating things) is that the shooter was racist against black people and that he had talked to whoever claimed it about his dislike of the entire race.