Gun Control

[Dheginsea]

 

What it boils down to, for me, is freedom. People should be allowed to own guns for self-defense, hunting, recreation, or for no reason at all - it doesn't matter. If they use the gun in an improper manner (killing someone, for example) then they face the consequences. Further, banning something that people obviously want under the guise of protecting them only backfires (see: Prohibition). It puts law-abiding citizens in a bind while not taking care of the problem: criminals.

 

For me it also boils down to freedom. But i think the difference between me and you is how far that freedom goes.

[das1330]

What it boils down to, for me, is freedom. People should be allowed to own guns for self-defense, hunting, recreation, or for no reason at all - it doesn't matter. If they use the gun in an improper manner (killing someone, for example) then they face the consequences. Further, banning something that people obviously want under the guise of protecting them only backfires (see: Prohibition). It puts law-abiding citizens in a bind while not taking care of the problem: criminals.

 

For me it also boils down to freedom. But i think the difference between me and you is how far that freedom goes.

 

Any reasonable definition of gun restrictions depends upon the actual statistics of what effect exactly they have on society. Given that no causal link exists between guns and homicides or deaths in general, the only reasonable conclusion possible is that they should not be restricted. Much as freedom of speech can only be abridged in exceedingly rare and extreme situations, so too is attacking the right to bear arms an extreme act.

[TrueBeaver]

What it boils down to, for me, is freedom. People should be allowed to own guns for self-defense, hunting, recreation, or for no reason at all - it doesn't matter. If they use the gun in an improper manner (killing someone, for example) then they face the consequences. Further, banning something that people obviously want under the guise of protecting them only backfires (see: Prohibition). It puts law-abiding citizens in a bind while not taking care of the problem: criminals.

 

For me it also boils down to freedom. But i think the difference between me and you is how far that freedom goes.

 

Any reasonable definition of gun restrictions depends upon the actual statistics of what effect exactly they have on society. Given that no causal link exists between guns and homicides or deaths in general, the only reasonable conclusion possible is that they should not be restricted. Much as freedom of speech can only be abridged in exceedingly rare and extreme situations, so too is attacking the right to bear arms an extreme act.

 

Very close to what I would have replied with.