Dumbest NRA Argument EVER

[eynon81]

[Medius]

[Indy]

[cool_chick]

[The Dharma Bum]

[exploited]

Look, at this point, I don't see how anyone could reasonably argue for no regulations on gun ownership.

The argument presented by the person talked about in the OP was stupid, sure, but the correct position to take on gun control is solidly in the middle of both sides. Gun control is necessary, it is a moral imperative, and it does a great deal of good - but it also needs to be balanced with the idea that people are able to defend themselves with guns, just as much as they are able to harm others with them. Guns are not inherently bad. And so legislation that takes away the ability of a law-abiding, sane individual to defend themselves isn't desirable either.

Ultimately, I don't think you can make an argument that gun control makes things safer or more dangerous, or that a lack of gun control will make things safer or more dangerous. Having access to guns or not having access to guns does not cause crime. Period. And so both are nonsensical positions, because they don't take into consideration context, or what particular piece of regulation we are talking about. They don't take into consideration local realities, or motivations for carrying a gun. I can't blame a woman walking home in the middle of the night in a bad neighbourhood from carrying a concealed handgun, nor do I think she should be prevented from doing so. On the flip side, I don't think it is unreasonable that a person who has previously used a gun in a malicious way should be prevented from owning one again, or that a person who has a mental disease that makes them drastically more likely to commit acts of violence should be allowed to have them either. It all depends on circumstances.

[Indy]

[eynon81]

[Ameriman]

[Ameriman]