Xangba said:
FFS, another. Okay been avoiding them but this is ridiculous. Nothing you have to say will add anything to this.
Guns are a tool intended to harm? Yeah we have a lot of tools intended to do harm. Whoopdee doo.
Everywhere except America hates them? Switzerland would like a word with you. Big time.
A semi-automatic weapon in a storage area is less of a home defense weapon than a shotgun?
Living in an urban area means you would never just drive to a hunting area with your rifle?
And for the love of god the restriction of them is impossible in America. You can't point to another country that has very tight gun laws and say "Look at them! They do it!" because in that country guns have not been as widespread as they are in America. They are everywhere. If someone wants one, they will get one.
See, I can make a list of my views too. Spoiler alert, what I say won't persuade you to what I believe. Good talk
Now, I am very glad someone mentioned Switzerland at the very least when it comes to foreign countries and their stance on firearm ownership. For those of you who would like some context, however, there is a unique reason as to
why the Swiss have such widespread ownership among its citizenry: They have no standing army, and instead employ a militia, made up of civilians that are conscripted and undergo military and firearm training.
Here is the Wikipedia article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland] for those who want to read about it in more detail, since I simply can't cut-and-paste the entire thing here, for fear of making a massive wall of text.
Now, to be more on point, the chances of firearms being banned outright in the U.S., or much less more controlled, are slim and laughable. The fact that they are widespread is only one reason behind why it's unlikely, as well as the fact that, yes, its a constitutional right. Yes, you can debate whether or not it still applies today, and in the way of owning a firearm for self-defense, but the fact of the matter is, until its amended in such a way that it no longer applies
at all, it still still be a valid counter-argument, if something of a cop-out.
Here is what the Second Amendment states said:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
And the Wikipedia article on that as well. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution]
Now, those points aside, I should point out that, one of the largest problems with firearm violence in America today is, most often, due to one or both of these two factors: Malicious Intent, and Irresponsible Firearm Handling.
Now, Malicious Intent can rarely be avoided, and when someone is truly determined, they will commit the crime they have set out to commit, regardless. Yes, a firearm will make murder easier, but a registered firearm will make it easier to catch the culprit. If it was an unregistered, illegally obtained firearm, then it's a moot point. Gun control laws will not stop illegal firearm acquisitions any more than DRM does for video game piracy. It only limits those who can legally acquire them.
However, Irresponsible Firearm Handling, can be prevented. You drill those who ever handle a gun with firearm safety until it becomes second nature, and then you prevent any accidental discharges, or other stupidity that can cause injury or death when it comes to guns.
Now, I won't say that more emphasis on firearm safety will solve everything when it comes to gun violence. The issue is much more complicated than that, and I won't even pretend to think that I know the first thing about solving it in it's entirety. But, being more responsible with firearms is a good place to start, as opposed to restrictive gun control laws, or outright banning them.
