Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamplighter
Saying that having a gun makes you more cautious is like saying that carrying a match in the forest makes you more cautious, or having an electrical wire in your hand makes you more cautious. It's superficially true, but in the heat of an event such caution can be lost.
|
Can lose caution? 1% of situations where people losing caution is a hell of a lot different than 99% of situations. Your statement has no merit since you are using anecdotes and what if scenarios. In the vast majority of situations, the scene will not be complete chaos.
Seriously, to both sides, it all depends on gun culture. When some people (lets call them Type A) get a hold of guns, they realize the power of the weapon they are holding and will become more cautious. They will not do anything stupid and will avoid confrontations unless absolutely necessary. Guns in the hands of these people, in general (I repeat....in general), will make society safer.
When other people (lets call them Type B) get a hold of guns, they realize the power of the weapon and power trip. They will be very confrontational and will enforce their status with guns. Gun in the hands of these people, in general, will make society more dangerous.
Both sides of the gun debate argument talk about different types of people.
Also, complete gun control in the US is a fantasy due to our gun culture. Both Type A and Type B people prefer guns and banning will just push guns further underground, as it did with drugs and alcohol.
To make the US safer with guns, it has to strictly regulated. In order to possess a firearm, classes and licenses (like driving) need to be obtained. If you are caught with a firearm without a license, the penalty should be harsh since there should be NO excuse for carrying without a license.
This is not a perfect solution but both sides need to acknowledge that their views are far from ideal as well.