What, does someone doing it non-instantly mean it never happened?
What you aren't understanding is that killing someone with a gun is very, very easy. Much more so than with a knife or a crossbow. A small child could potentially kill someone with a pistol with no real need for muscular exertion as he would with a knife or bow.
Bows are still dangerous. Left in the hands of someone with the same training as someone who purchased a non-regulated firearm, do you really find him so much safer?
Bows are much more difficult to use and a kid can't really use them effectively as they require significant muscular strength. That, and bows are much harder to aim than guns.
Yeah, but someone aiming his gun at you isn't all that subtle a hint.
If someone is already aiming a gun at you, and really wants to kill you, better kiss your butt goodbye because you'll be dead in the next instant.
Okay, a guy is aiming his Colt .45 at you and he's standing five feet away. Tell me how you stop him without a gun.
How do you stop him
with a gun in that scenario unless you're Chuck Norris? Unless said attacker wants something from you like your money or possessions, you're dead. Game over.
Nitpick, drug users by definition CANNOT be law abiding citizens as drug use is currently against the law
(This only applies to the US and countries with similar law.)
Sad thing is, if it weren't for drug laws many people would be perfectly law abiding.
Seriously, while I think drug laws are definitely too harsh, and some drugs should be allowed, generally guns can be used by anyone for good or bad purposes, when drugs are used, its ALWAYS negative.
So very, very wrong.
Tell that to Steve Jobs, who loved LSD and called it one of the three most important things in his life. Also try telling that to Medical Marijuana patients who rely on that drug for a better quality of life.
That said, my concern wouldn't be what the effect is, but who takes the effect. If you want to hurt yourself, that's fine by me, but the minute your drug habit affects your kids, you should be off to rehab.
Define "affect".
Well, some of the more moderate "Liberals" would concede that some guns (That are less dangerous) should be allowed. The idea that certain dangerous things endanger others "Too much" and others don't is a solid one. You can't allow everything, you can't ban everything. Cars and tanks are both dangerous, yet we allow one and not the other.
I think all guns should be allowed, even automatic weapons.
Everyone disagrees on what things are dangerous. Me personally, I think people can learn to be responsible with drugs and guns. You seem to think that only of guns, which is hypocritical.
That said, what the "Gun control" argument misses is that guns aren't freaking dangerous. People who use guns can be dangerous. Same as any other tool.
Guns are dangerous. They have the power to very easily kill someone, from long distances, which can't be said of any other household "tool".
Which is why it's important that one be well versed in handling firearms if they want to use them.
The only time the gun control argument holds water is either if the tool can ONLY be used in a dangerous way (Rocket launchers, grenade launchers, bazookas, that sort of thing would apply in most cases) or the user has proved they WILL use them in a dangerous (Unlawful) way. I'd say a misdemeanor conviction within 10 years, or a felony conviction at any period of time, is a good standard to use to automatically disqualify someone from gun ownership. While ability to bear arms is a right, this can be lost by committing a crime, as can other rights (While some would argue that life is an unalienable right, nobody would argue the same about liberty unless they oppose any and all prison, and the "Proper" preamble to the Bill of Rights would prohibit fines by the same logic).
Guns can pretty much only be used in a dangerous way, since every time you use them you are expelling a pellet of hot lead at speeds near or greater than that of sound. You don't think that's dangerous?
Other than that, I see no reason for much regulation. A basic self-defense test would be appropriate (By this I mean a test discussing when you can and when you can't use self-defense.) And possibly to sign a statement saying you won't use drugs (Or at least certain drugs) while owning a firearm. Guns and cocaine are a very bad mix, especially if you happen to have family involved as well. If you use said drugs while having a gun, you'd get it taken away and get a greater penalty than you'd get normally.
That isn't freedom. You're assuming that cocaine automatically makes people violent. It doesn't, at least not anymore than alcohol does.
I'll explain it. If guns being dangerous means you should need a license, hands, which can also kill, should be licensed as well.
There is no logical basis for this analogy. You can't buy hands in a store. Hands don't shoot bullets. Hands can be used for an infinite variety of things besides shooting bullets.
