Regulate Guns? What's Here To Think About?
shylilazn
Published
06/30/2014
A very popular discussion recently is about limitting the easy access to guns in America. There's a lot of reasons why this should be done (usually resulting from the irresponsible behavior from the people who support easy gun access). A gun gives its owner the power to easily defend themselves from an assailant but it's also as easy to use for harming someone. Especially when the gun owner would take any opportunity to actually use their gun - so there are people who would whip their gun out during a heated dispute, for example.
Are guns seriously necessary? Let's compare some facts, shall we? In Australia the crime rate is less than 8% of America's (YES, that's less than ONE TENTH!). Are guns easily available in Australia? No. Are there mobsters, rapists and petty criminals that whip their gun at people encountered often in Australia? No. In America pretty much any crook, 12 year old gang initiate or nationalist, for example, can have a gun, for protection. Bought at Wal-Mart. Of course, how they use it is up to them. So why does America need guns to defend themselves and their crime rate is so high? Idiotic, isn't it?
The main argument in these kinds of debates is that you need a gun to defend yourself. But a taser is much more effective - so why a gun, which you need to unholster, remove the safety from, aim and shoot gives better protection? It doesn't. Let's say you're being robbed, with a gun pointed at you. You have a gun too. Something gets the robber's attention and he turns away from you, so here's your chance. You pull out your gun, set the safety trigger to "off" or whatever you do to make it ready and aim at the bad guy. You shoot him twice but the shock and adrenaline makes him barely notice any pain. He does know he got shot though, so he aims his gun and shoots you.
What would the situation look like with a taser? You flip out your taser, shoot and hit any part of the robber's body. The electrical impulse paralyses him instantly. His gun falls out of his hand as he drops on the floor, in convulsion.
This is pretty much the gold counter argument for any gun supporter but there's still people who want guns to be easily accessible. Why? Because they like guns. They like to feel like the person in charge. You won't say "Bitch, you better calm down or I'm gonna cap your ass. With mah taser." So what's the main obstacle in the battle against guns? Irresponsible people.
What does regulating guns mean? It means that guns wouldn't be easy to buy or available to people who are immature or unsuitable to use them. Who'd use guns? The police, the army, and some people who'd be privileged to use them - people who went through psychical evaluation, have a clean slate, need guns for their job, etc.
I gave Australia as example, but you can pretty much compare America to any European country and you'd get similar results. People in civilised countries around the world have very strict policies when it comes for guns. You compare the crime rates.
Are guns seriously necessary? Let's compare some facts, shall we? In Australia the crime rate is less than 8% of America's (YES, that's less than ONE TENTH!). Are guns easily available in Australia? No. Are there mobsters, rapists and petty criminals that whip their gun at people encountered often in Australia? No. In America pretty much any crook, 12 year old gang initiate or nationalist, for example, can have a gun, for protection. Bought at Wal-Mart. Of course, how they use it is up to them. So why does America need guns to defend themselves and their crime rate is so high? Idiotic, isn't it?
The main argument in these kinds of debates is that you need a gun to defend yourself. But a taser is much more effective - so why a gun, which you need to unholster, remove the safety from, aim and shoot gives better protection? It doesn't. Let's say you're being robbed, with a gun pointed at you. You have a gun too. Something gets the robber's attention and he turns away from you, so here's your chance. You pull out your gun, set the safety trigger to "off" or whatever you do to make it ready and aim at the bad guy. You shoot him twice but the shock and adrenaline makes him barely notice any pain. He does know he got shot though, so he aims his gun and shoots you.
What would the situation look like with a taser? You flip out your taser, shoot and hit any part of the robber's body. The electrical impulse paralyses him instantly. His gun falls out of his hand as he drops on the floor, in convulsion.
This is pretty much the gold counter argument for any gun supporter but there's still people who want guns to be easily accessible. Why? Because they like guns. They like to feel like the person in charge. You won't say "Bitch, you better calm down or I'm gonna cap your ass. With mah taser." So what's the main obstacle in the battle against guns? Irresponsible people.
What does regulating guns mean? It means that guns wouldn't be easy to buy or available to people who are immature or unsuitable to use them. Who'd use guns? The police, the army, and some people who'd be privileged to use them - people who went through psychical evaluation, have a clean slate, need guns for their job, etc.
I gave Australia as example, but you can pretty much compare America to any European country and you'd get similar results. People in civilised countries around the world have very strict policies when it comes for guns. You compare the crime rates.
78 Comments