Do you believe that the American populace could actually fight back against the US military? Small arms are pretty ineffective against aircraft and armored vehicles, which is the real strength of the military.
|
Yes, and that's an argument for not banning assault weapons. The government won't simply bomb everyone if they attempted to oppress the populace. They would have no one to oppress and therefore no real authority if they killed everyone. Any seizing of guns would be on the ground and would require soldiers to go door to door. Also a population of millions of armed people could infiltrate an oppressive government's headquarters if need-be. That's how coups happen. The government has the military, but that doesn't mean they always win against the populace.
I think another important point is how large the US is, and how a lot of gun owners live in remote areas of the country. If the government wants all the citizens of Montana, Alaska, Wyoming, or so many other states to give up their guns; what can the government realistically do about it?
|
Well yes, it would be implausible to take every gun away. Too many unregistered or illegal guns that the government doesn't even know who all has guns or how many they have, let alone the means to get them from millions of people across the country.
Most "common sense" gun control arguments I've seen really are not common sense. A lot of the arguments I've seen are made by people with no understanding of firearms, or even the statistics behind gun crime.
|
I mean I see the danger of universal background checks because then the gov. knows who has what guns but at this point in our country, universal background checks seems like common sense. When people start talking about banning all assault weapons or semi-automatics and call that common sense, then that's just becoming a political debate rather than actual common sense reform.
Totally agree with mental health care reform. If the government isn't going to do anything about firearms; and school security is proving to be ineffective then the obvious solution would be to minimize threats before they develop.
|
It's crazy when you see how many parents have kids with mental problems and they can't get any help. They take them to the hospital when it gets really bad and the hospital has to kick them out after 24 hours. The gov. offers help but usually requires the parent to give up custody of their kid. There's no real treatment available to poor people and there's a stigma that makes people not want to seek help when they need it. We imprison the mentally ill and they only come out worse and more unstable. The mental health crisis even goes far beyond kids shooting schools.
It's not really hard to grasp the simple concept that such crimes are easy to commit when you have an abundance of deadly weaponry. Couple that with poor mental health and you have a problem.
It obviously goes beyond guns, and I totally agree with that point, but is the US really fit to continue to dump more into circulation?
|
Focusing on the guns is not going to solve the problem. It may minimize loss of life to an extent, but attacks will still happen. Don't have a gun? Use a car. Don't have a car? Use a knife. What needs to be addressed is the actual cause of the violence, not simply the tool used to commit it.
Also, a lot of gun crime you see in U.S. statistics is in cities where there's a lot of gang violence. It's the cliché that the criminals will still have guns. I think guns are an important part of security for the people against the government and just banning or reducing guns doesn't solve the actual problem. These people aren't tryung to kill people because of guns. Yes, guns allow for more loss of life, but the problem is that America doesn't care to tackle the real problems that cause these events to happen in the first place.