Gun Control Q&A

Q: Some politicians say that they don't want to take away hunting weapons or self-defense weapons. Shouldn't we reduce gun violence by getting assault weapons off the streets?
A: A weapon is a device used to injure or kill something. A hunting weapon is a sniper rifle in another context. A cop-killer bullet is thief-killer bullet. A self-defense weapon is a hijacker's handgun. A buck skinning knife is evidence at a crime scene. An assault weapon is a peace-keeping weapon. A weapon is a weapon. Some politicians have come up with all kinds of creative adjectives to try to make certain types of weapons sound menacing, evil, or dangerous. Weapons are objects. People are menacing, evil, or dangerous.
We should reduce gun violence. We should reduce knife violence. We should reduce fist violence. We should reduce pencil stabbing violence. We should reduce baseball bat violence. We should reduce gang violence. We should reduce hockey violence. We should reduce football violence. We should reduce [insert adjective here] violence... The adjective here is not important. Violence is the problem. You can't get rid of violence by trying to enforce laws against all of the adjectives. The adjectives aren't the problem. We should reduce violence. Making laws against guns won't make people less violent.

Q: If all guns were completely outlawed, then amount of violent crime would go down, right?
A: Criminals don't obey the law. That is why they are called criminals. They commit crimes in violation of the law. As long as there are criminals out there, they will break the law and be violent. If guns are outlawed, then they will break the gun control laws and be violent. They will probably be more successful too because all of the law abiding citizens will be sitting ducks without any guns. Criminals love gun control legislation. It makes their job easy. It takes the risk out of it.

Q: Taking military weapons off the streets in downtown Cincinnati is hardly imposing on your second amendment right.
A: Sure it is. Click here to read it! The second amendment to the Constitution authorizes citizens to keep and bear arms for military purposes. Taking military weapons off the people on the streets of Cincinnati is as much a rights violation as taking weapons off the people anywhere else in the country.

Q: Weapons have no place in a civilized society.
A: Our civilized society is full of non-civil people. As long as this is the case, civil people have to keep them from doing very bad things (murderous thieving raping pillaging things).
As long as there are bad people there will be bad people out there with guns. As long as there are bad people out there with guns, good people must have guns to defend themselves.

Q: Why not let the government weed out the bad people? Limit the gun possession to the police and military. Let them be the good people with the guns.
A: When the police and military are the only people allowed to have weapons we call that a dictatorship. Those governments rule by fiat. They dictate and their subject obey or get shot. They are judge, jury, executioner, legislative branch, executive branch, and judicial branch. Democracy can't function because the only voices that are heard are the voices of those that have guns.
If you think it's terrible that a few kids get shot now and then by their unruly peers then think how much worse it would be if the government marched into each school in the country, lined up the students that were of a particular race or religion and shot them down like dogs. The death toll would be higher and more targeted.
That is what happens in countries where only the government is allowed to have guns.
You're assuming that the government is full of good guys. No one at any government office that I have been to has done anything to convince me that that is the case.
Removing our final check and balance to tyranny is not in the interest of public safety. So far, the checks and balances of the three branches of government has kept the U.S. from becoming a totalitarian government, but that doesn't mean that we should remove our final and most effective means of protection from it.

Q: But kids are being killed at school! We have to do something, right?
A:This is somewhat of a new trend. Firearms have been around for some time now, including AK47, SKS, and other "assault" weapons. Kids have had access to guns for a long time, but school shootings weren't an issue for previous generations. Something has changed. If weapons have been around, but shootings haven't then it suggests that the upcoming generations consist of more cold blooded murderers. A cold blooded killer doesn't care if it is illegal to have a certain type of gun. Outlawing firearms for adults in public places like schools or government offices will not cure murderous kids of their impulses. They will still murder people. Armed adults at school could reduce their success rates though.
We do have to do something to address violence in schools. I suggest raising your kids better. Don't be immoral yourself. Don't get divorces or drive fathers out of homes. Teach kids good behavior at home. Let them know that there is a right and wrong to every question and help them come to learn how to know the difference. Teach them morality. Teach them religion. Teach them that violence isn't cool. Tell your kid to stop picking on the fat kid. Tell your crybaby to wean and grow up. Be a better example. Control your own temper. Show the kids how to be better. Discourage inappropriate media at home and elsewhere.