Hopefully the crime rate would drop now.
What's surprised me is that this has turned out to be something that's bringing both far-left liberals and far-right conservative lawmakers together. Not just far-right conservative Republicans were hailing this. Many prominent far-left liberal Democrats were joining hands with those same Republicans in publicly praising this. It turns out this has more been urban/big city interests vs. rural interests. Big cities want to blanket ban all guns because of gun violence while gun ownership is a part of life out in the remote, rural areas of the country.
I hope now that this court definition means we can put the anti-gun/pro-gun debate behind us and work on common-sense laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals without impeding the ability of law-abiding citizens to buy and keep firearms everywhere.
When you think people can't get any stupider...
I don't see how a gun ban is going to save anyone.
If someone wanted to shoot someone bad enough, they'd steal a gun and shoot them. If their going to try to murder someone, anyways, why not add possesion of an illegal weapon onto the list? It's not going to change anything.
Making a means of protection illegal would probably increase the murder rates when you think about it. Gangs and such would be practically given the right to attack anyone they want to, and those they attack (if they're honest citizens), won't be able to defend themselves properly.
So if someone breaks into your home with intent to harm you, there would be no way to protect your family. You'd be as good as dead. And like I said, 'why not add to the list of crimes you've committed?', the person who broke into your house would probably be holding a gun in they're hands.
It would just be a useless law, and a stupid one at that.
| QUOTE (Hanyoukai @ Jun 26 2008, 06:22 PM) |
When you think people can't get any stupider...
I don't see how a gun ban is going to save anyone.
If someone wanted to shoot someone bad enough, they'd steal a gun and shoot them. If their going to try to murder someone, anyways, why not add possesion of an illegal weapon onto the list? It's not going to change anything.
Making a means of protection illegal would probably increase the murder rates when you think about it. Gangs and such would be practically given the right to attack anyone they want to, and those they attack (if they're honest citizens), won't be able to defend themselves properly.
So if someone breaks into your home with intent to harm you, there would be no way to protect your family. You'd be as good as dead. And like I said, 'why not add to the list of crimes you've committed?', the person who broke into your house would probably be holding a gun in they're hands.
It would just be a useless law, and a stupid one at that. |
Hence the reasoning for this ruling today. The majority of justices could plainly see that criminals are going to get guns one way or another. Banning guns only makes law abiding citizens free-game for violent, bloodthirsty criminals. The debate will now rightly shift to what level of firepower citizens should be allowed to have in their homes.
For me, I can see the reasons for outlawing high-power rifles and semi-auto versions of military assault weapons. Those are guns that can be used to kill cops in cold blood whether they've got on body armor or not, but I've of course never really shot a weapon like that, so I'm not sure. The biggest handgun I've ever shot was a .44 Magnum revolver and I only fired one cylinder of ammo out of one before I'd had enough of it and decided I couldn't use it. My handgun size limit I do believe is my M1911-A1 semi-automatic pistol that fires .45 ACP ammo. Essentially, its the same sidearm pistol the soldiers of World War II carried as backups for their M-1 Garand battle rifles.