You know, I'm always amazed at (what seems to be) the majority response in the US at the idea of increasing/improving gun controls and enforcing them more rigorously. The purpose of such legislation is to:
1. provide the general public with 'guarantees' around safety levels
2. make sure that gun owners are responsible and only responsible people can become owners
3. make it more difficult to unlawfully obtain firearms
By making it more difficult to unlawfully obtain firearms, you:
1. enable people who like/need guns and can be trusted with them, to keep them (responsible gun owners)
2. make it really expensive for criminals to have guns thus reducing the number of criminals who can afford them.
Consequently, where there are well-enforced, gun controls, you see far fewer guns in the hands of criminals.
To disagree with well-enforced gun controls would seem to imply:
1. you approve of irresponsible gun ownership
2. you want to see guns in the hands of criminals.
Am I going mad or is the above really an accurate analysis of the fundamental arguments from the NRA?
1. provide the general public with 'guarantees' around safety levels
2. make sure that gun owners are responsible and only responsible people can become owners
3. make it more difficult to unlawfully obtain firearms
By making it more difficult to unlawfully obtain firearms, you:
1. enable people who like/need guns and can be trusted with them, to keep them (responsible gun owners)
2. make it really expensive for criminals to have guns thus reducing the number of criminals who can afford them.
Consequently, where there are well-enforced, gun controls, you see far fewer guns in the hands of criminals.
To disagree with well-enforced gun controls would seem to imply:
1. you approve of irresponsible gun ownership
2. you want to see guns in the hands of criminals.
Am I going mad or is the above really an accurate analysis of the fundamental arguments from the NRA?
Sum ergo sum
