I think that some of the things that get's me, is that the case for gun control is not made well. It's more emotional reaction than logical. Say for instance that you want to limit or get rid of automatic rifles with a large clip size. It doesn't make sense, to cite all gun deaths, when the majority of incidences are not made with this type of weapon. In this recent school tragedy even, that weapon may have only made a little difference. This (in my opinion) is more of concern, when you have a crowd, where indiscriminate fire is more effective.
Similarly for many places which have enacted gun bans, while they did eventually minimize gun deaths, they didn't have that much effect on overall deaths. People within a time, realized that they could kill themselves or kill others with things besides a gun. There may be some instances where the lack of a gun will change things, but for someone who wants to kill another, the problem isn't the weapon.
We need to be realistic about what is being proposed, and what will be the results. Arguments that make you come off as someone who is just afraid of guns does not help.
Similarly, the "right to bear arms" shouldn't be used as a conversation stopper. And it needs to be realistically looked at, that not all who own guns are responsible or thoughtful in their use. Specific weapons and their availability do need to be looked at, and arguments heard.
Also of consideration is why the founders of the nation included the "right to bear arms". This is fairly unique to the U.S. from my understanding. We may not always have a stable and wise leader like Trump in control, and may need to be able to stand up to the government at some point.
Similarly for many places which have enacted gun bans, while they did eventually minimize gun deaths, they didn't have that much effect on overall deaths. People within a time, realized that they could kill themselves or kill others with things besides a gun. There may be some instances where the lack of a gun will change things, but for someone who wants to kill another, the problem isn't the weapon.
We need to be realistic about what is being proposed, and what will be the results. Arguments that make you come off as someone who is just afraid of guns does not help.
Similarly, the "right to bear arms" shouldn't be used as a conversation stopper. And it needs to be realistically looked at, that not all who own guns are responsible or thoughtful in their use. Specific weapons and their availability do need to be looked at, and arguments heard.
Also of consideration is why the founders of the nation included the "right to bear arms". This is fairly unique to the U.S. from my understanding. We may not always have a stable and wise leader like Trump in control, and may need to be able to stand up to the government at some point.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther