usa should ban most guns and confiscate them
as the oxford link indicates, a gun is a danger to yourself and those around you... you're more likely to be shot or to kill with a gun. most people can accept this much. but then the next step is imagine lots of people with guns. wouldnt be common sense to expect more murders? that's what the evidence indicates, not just common sense.more guns means more overall homicide
would you be open to this if it could reduce murders by say, eighty percent?
i reluctantly would probably support bans and confiscation on a nationwide scale. this view doesn't make me popular and i dont like taking people's guns away. and i am open to evidence to contradict my main premises and cause me more caution in my view. i am just openly considering the idea, which is what i think should be expected from everyone.
as the oxford link indicates, a gun is a danger to yourself and those around you... you're more likely to be shot or to kill with a gun. most people can accept this much. but then the next step is imagine lots of people with guns. wouldnt be common sense to expect more murders? that's what the evidence indicates, not just common sense.
i would expect if we banned and confiscated weopons that gun murders would go down as that's what the evidence indicates. i'm sure with the open borders etc that there would still be some murder, and defenseless people, just not as much. the main reason people need a gun for self defense is because there's so many guns to begin with. ive never seen someone acknowledge "yes we get more murder with gun rights, but that's the way it is for self defense". but it seems that's what the situation is. getting rid of guns should be taken seriously, i just dont know the exact numbers for what would happen.
Writing in 'The Gulag Archipelago' Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn described the agony that prisoners of the Soviet Slave state felt about not resisting their enslavement.
". And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of
half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?
After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you'd be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur-what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked? The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! "
Is it really so unthinkable, that what has happened in countless societies, could happen here in the West? Should we not prepare, yes pray that day never comes, but should we not prepare for the eventuality of dictatorship here? Should we not have a plan, so that we are not the ones burning in the camps wondering why we did not resist? Why we did not fight for our freedom? You may naively assure me that this will never happen, and I will hope that you are right, but rather than simply hoping I would instead prefer to fight to ensure that our society is free and that due process and the rule of law triumph over kangeroo courts and the suspension of civil liberties.
con favors protecting against a far fetched government take over, over the concrete reality of thousands of people dying of murder each year. i assume he is okay with the murders in the name of security from the government
con adds effectively nothing, so i reiterate my points