"I have held many things in my hands, and I have lost them all; but whatever I have placed in God's hands, that I still possess." -Martin Luther

Saturday, February 25, 2006

Gun Control 2: Should Guns Be?

In my last post, I made an effort to show that the differences between "assault weapons" and "personal defence weapons" are the following:

-Personal defence weapons are less accurate

-Personal defence weapons are shorter range

-Personal defence weapons have lower fire rates and ammunition capacity.

-Personal defence weapons typically do more damage on impact, including wounding, tumbling, fragmenting, bruising, knocking down and knocking unconcious.

I would personally think accuracy in a personal defence weapon is key. If you cannot hit your target, what's the use? In addition, people unused to shooting criminals will be much less accurate with their aiming in the first place, without the added inaccuracy of the weapon itself. Shorter ranges for defence weapons shouldn't be a problem. If you must kill someone in self defence, they are probably nearby. Otherwise, you should be able to avoid them in most cases. A lower fire rate may or may not be reasonable. It allows for careful aiming, and lowers the chance of accidentally shooting more than one person. The higher caliber, spread-on-impact ammunition common to larger caliber handguns considered personal defence weapons are a good idea. These bullets probably won't go all the way through the target, lowering incidence of hitting someone accidently (or, though this isn't all that important in the long run, shooting up the furniture). They are also much more likely to instantly incapacitate whoever they hit. In a life-and-death, me or them situation that forces me to shoot in self defence, I do not want to hurt the criminal a little. I want to make him instantly unable to hurt me. The funny thing is, people in favor of gun control dislike the following weapons: high caliber weapons (like handguns); ranged, rapid fire weapons (like assault rifles). Their arguments against these weapons, however, at least the arguments that allow for some weapons to be legal for "personal use" always contradict. Low caliber weapons like the .22 are ok, because they aren't as dangerous. Blink...blink. I thought guns were supposed to be dangerous. If a gun weren't dangerous, why keep it around? I'm not against non-lethal weapons. I'm just saying the purpose of a gun is to kill somebody. That argument would say that the approximately .22 sized rounds fired by the M-4 carbine, M-16 assault rifle, and countless others, should be legal. The other argument is that all these high fire rate weapons should be banned. So, we should allow the low fire rate .45, .38, 9mm, etc, which are much more dangerous, at close range, on a shot to shot basis?
What it comes down to is this. If the government is going to ban some guns whithin these boundaries, it had better ban all of them. I'm not talking about banning 40mm automatic grenade launchers from civilian use. The training and use this weapon requires makes it impractical for defense in the first place. My point is, the government is going to leave us with either bb guns, or nothing to defend outselves with. Would that be ok? What if we came up with effective, cheap stun guns that, at close ranges, always effectively knocked out a target for half an hour? Could we then ban all lethal weapons like firearms from civilian use?
I think the write to keep and bear arms speaks for itself.
If you don't think this, just remember that the reason this right was included in the Bill was to make sure the government could not control the country.
Say what?
Yeah, the country is supposed to control the government. The governent serves the country at the country's permissal. The governent doesn't have to ask before it does most things, and it is not supposed to base its decisions on what its citizens want, rather, on what things are good for the country that are within the governent's authority to attain. But it still serves. Our system was crafted to prevent the possibility of the army being sent in the make the citizens slaves of the government, without rights or liberties. Oh. So, this means... Oh, right. Gun control is just such a breach of rights. A breach of rights that would allow all rights to be breached quite easily.

2 comments:

  1. So then, still no comments? Do you have to write these for school or are these topics that you personally enjoy?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have to write for school. I choose my own topics.

    ReplyDelete

A soft answer turns away wrath,
but a harsh word stirs up anger.
The tongue of the wise commends knowledge,
but the mouths of fools pour out folly.