Smoking Gun Arguments
A few days ago, my girlfriend decided she loved me so much that she sent me an article of a triple murder in New Orleans, which I can’t link to right now because I can’t even find the darn e-mail anymore. Basically, a guy in New Orleans shot three other guys dead over the weekend for looking at his girlfriend. Yeah, I know. What a messed up dude.
Being the person that I am, I had to talk about this one to whomever I could. So I mentioned it to a Whistlestop bus driver while riding into San Francisco the other day with my boss and inevitably started up an argument. According to him, that stuff ONLY happens in America and that it never happens in Europe. If you want to know how incorrect that statement is, do a news search for crimes in Europe. You’ll be surprised at what you find.
After I rebutted that point, we discussed gun laws and the like. My stance: We should be able to have guns in order to protect ourselves. His stance: we should be more like the UK system and ban gun ownership. So I asked him the question I always ask people who say this: Criminals will get their hands on guns whether or not it’s legal. That being said, why is a system where law abiding citizens aren’t allowed to have guns but criminals will somehow better than a system where law abiding citizens can protect themselves from criminals with guns? Typically, this guy answered with, “Well, yunno, it’s all politics and…” going off on a rant that totally beats around the bush instead of answering my question. My boss joined in with him saying as clear as he could that the UK system is better because they still crack down on guns. We crack down on illegal gun trade here in the United States too, so what difference does it make? Criminals still can rob stores and they don’t even need guns. They’ll use whatever they can. Swords even. Sounds crazy? Well, it happened in India.
I ask anyone reading this to answer this simple question: why is a system where law abiding citizens aren’t allowed to have guns but criminals will somehow better than a system where law abiding citizens can protect themselves from criminals with guns? No slamming, no verbal abuse, just answer my question. Thank you.
Being the person that I am, I had to talk about this one to whomever I could. So I mentioned it to a Whistlestop bus driver while riding into San Francisco the other day with my boss and inevitably started up an argument. According to him, that stuff ONLY happens in America and that it never happens in Europe. If you want to know how incorrect that statement is, do a news search for crimes in Europe. You’ll be surprised at what you find.
After I rebutted that point, we discussed gun laws and the like. My stance: We should be able to have guns in order to protect ourselves. His stance: we should be more like the UK system and ban gun ownership. So I asked him the question I always ask people who say this: Criminals will get their hands on guns whether or not it’s legal. That being said, why is a system where law abiding citizens aren’t allowed to have guns but criminals will somehow better than a system where law abiding citizens can protect themselves from criminals with guns? Typically, this guy answered with, “Well, yunno, it’s all politics and…” going off on a rant that totally beats around the bush instead of answering my question. My boss joined in with him saying as clear as he could that the UK system is better because they still crack down on guns. We crack down on illegal gun trade here in the United States too, so what difference does it make? Criminals still can rob stores and they don’t even need guns. They’ll use whatever they can. Swords even. Sounds crazy? Well, it happened in India.
I ask anyone reading this to answer this simple question: why is a system where law abiding citizens aren’t allowed to have guns but criminals will somehow better than a system where law abiding citizens can protect themselves from criminals with guns? No slamming, no verbal abuse, just answer my question. Thank you.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home