The problem is that America isn't comparable to the other countries you are using to support that logic. They had a problem and fixed it. America has had a problem for a long time and is beyond just a simple fix. In our case, fixing one thing will break another.There's zero evidence that home invasions would increase. In fact, in every other first-world nation, they have very strict gun laws and very little home invasions.If owning a gun became illegal, home invasions would increase. I'm using thr same logic as banning guns would reduce shootings so you can't really refute it without refuting both.Opinion based on fact is all we have. The fact is, there are next to no home invasions in America. Using home invasion as a reason to justify gun ownership is irrational.An opinion piece.Gun Violence and the Irrational Fear of Home InvasionHow else am I supposed to protect myself and my family? We live in a subdivision outside city limits. We're at least 15 minutes from the nearest police station. If there's a B&E, my wife knows to take our kids to the master bedroom, lock the door, get her gun, and call 911. Without a firearm to even the odds, she's defenseless against an assailant.Why is it that sane, rational people who think we don't need guns have to be labeled "leftists" or "liberals" or whatever other dismissive name comes to mind?
Why can't we just realize there are people without an agenda who understand that guns, while neat & fun & safe in the right hands, don't really have a place in a civilized society?
So yes, I can refute both. We have plenty of examples to show this is wrong.
Only America has carte blanche access to firearms. Only America has this kind of gun violence problem.
This isn't a coincidence.
Nobody ever said it would be simple. But claiming that it'll be hard is no excuse for not moving forward to fix this. Every other first-world nation has figured this out. Surely we can, too.The problem is that America isn't comparable to the other countries you are using to support that logic. They had a problem and fixed it. America has had a problem for a long time and is beyond just a simple fix. In our case, fixing one thing will break another.
Surely you can see that it's not so simple that restricting purchase of firearms will solve shootings.
Not using it as an excuse.Nobody ever said it would be simple. But claiming that it'll be hard is no excuse for not moving forward to fix this. Every other first-world nation has figured this out. Surely we can, too.The problem is that America isn't comparable to the other countries you are using to support that logic. They had a problem and fixed it. America has had a problem for a long time and is beyond just a simple fix. In our case, fixing one thing will break another.Surely you can see that it's not so simple that restricting purchase of firearms will solve shootings.
It has to do with the laws not applying to certain people. Money matters when the law comes into play.Every politician is rich. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.
I don't live in a mansion. I have guns. I'd like to see significant changes to our gun laws.
This is a tangent to the question of gun control. Remove the "rich politicians" from the equation, and plenty of regular Americans want change. Stop focusing on the politicians and focus on the problem.It has to do with the laws not applying to certain people. Money matters when the law comes into play.Every politician is rich. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.
I don't live in a mansion. I have guns. I'd like to see significant changes to our gun laws.
Actually, some would very much like to adopt a Japanese or British rule for this situation.Nobody is asking for a ban on all guns. This is irrational and hinders our ability to have a healthy conversation about the topic.Okay, say the government bans citizens from purchasing and owning guns. They come into our homes and take them. Do they pay us back for them? Nope. Now we as citizens are defenseless.Why can't we just realize there are people without an agenda who understand that guns, while neat & fun & safe in the right hands, don't really have a place in a civilized society?
Along comes John Q. Burglar who still has his illegally aquired .45 and easily robs a family, and for funsies he shoots them.
Let's take it a step further. All guns are gone in America. Crime drops, shootings drop, and liberal America rejoices......for all of a week before ISIS comes in and starts slaughtering us knowing full well citizens are no longer armed. Liberals scratch their heads how this could happen since guns are illegal.
Banning firearms is more an answer than allowing them. One attempts to fix the problem, the other ignores it.Not using it as an excuse.Nobody ever said it would be simple. But claiming that it'll be hard is no excuse for not moving forward to fix this. Every other first-world nation has figured this out. Surely we can, too.The problem is that America isn't comparable to the other countries you are using to support that logic. They had a problem and fixed it. America has had a problem for a long time and is beyond just a simple fix. In our case, fixing one thing will break another.Surely you can see that it's not so simple that restricting purchase of firearms will solve shootings.
But the simple act of banning firearms isn't the answer.
It matters because the law needs to apply to everyone. Change needs to be meaningful, or else we end up with another Patriot Act.This is a tangent to the question of gun control. Remove the "rich politicians" from the equation, and plenty of regular Americans want change. Stop focusing on the politicians and focus on the problem.It has to do with the laws not applying to certain people. Money matters when the law comes into play.Every politician is rich. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.
I don't live in a mansion. I have guns. I'd like to see significant changes to our gun laws.
What are you talking about? These are just empty words about politicians getting special treatment.It matters because the law needs to apply to everyone. Change needs to be meaningful, or else we end up with another Patriot Act.This is a tangent to the question of gun control. Remove the "rich politicians" from the equation, and plenty of regular Americans want change. Stop focusing on the politicians and focus on the problem.It has to do with the laws not applying to certain people. Money matters when the law comes into play.Every politician is rich. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.
I don't live in a mansion. I have guns. I'd like to see significant changes to our gun laws.
Flooding the nation with guns & bullets like we've been doing is significantly worse than a nation with fewer guns. The fewer guns in the system, the harder it is for criminals to get them. This is simple, basic logic.If you decrease legal availability of getting a gun or put in a million checks to keep people from getting guns that shouldn't have them, it will only drive the availability of getting guns on the secondary/black market. Which is worse? Guns are like drugs. If you want to use, you find a way to get what you need.
They aren't empty words. In the post 9/11 hysteria, politicians got the average citizen to gladly hand over individual freedoms in the name of "security" via the Patriot Act.What are you talking about? These are just empty words about politicians getting special treatment.It matters because the law needs to apply to everyone. Change needs to be meaningful, or else we end up with another Patriot Act.This is a tangent to the question of gun control. Remove the "rich politicians" from the equation, and plenty of regular Americans want change. Stop focusing on the politicians and focus on the problem.It has to do with the laws not applying to certain people. Money matters when the law comes into play.Every politician is rich. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.
I don't live in a mansion. I have guns. I'd like to see significant changes to our gun laws.