Gun Control - The Debate

   ~ Let's start this from the beginning. ~

 America's founders fought the Revolutionary War to throw off British tyranny. Most of the revolutionaries owned and used their own guns in that war. After the war, in 1789, the 13 American States adopted the Constitution, creating the federal government. Before ratifying the Constitution, the people demanded a Bill of Rights to prevent our government from depriving them of their liberties as the British had done.
 Today many in the public domain have a fear of firearms. We watch as the cries for gun control go up with every senseless tragedy that befalls our nation. But is this the guns fault? These hideous crimes that occur in schools or movie theaters or any other unguarded public place are being committed by psychologically damaged individuals, who I'm sure if they didn't have access to these guns would have used a bomb or any other kind of lethal device. This is what we see after each attack.....

 As we have seen with prohibition, making something against the law does not make it disappear. When the government in 1920 decided to make alcohol illegal we would be gullible to think that this law forced people to stop drinking. Instead it forced drinkers into underground and created a black market for gangsters and 'dealers' to profit from.The same may be said for anything the government chooses to make illegal. After all, cocaine and heroin are illegal but does that mean no one can obtain them?  (Check this link for more info on what and how people drank during prohibition.) http://www.efficientdrinker.com/blog/alcohol-sources-during-prohibition/ 
 Would the same happen today if guns were seriously controlled? Background checks are nothing but a bureaucratic nightmare and truly are ineffective and don't in reality do much to remedy the issue, just provide more red tape...http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/guns-and-dollars/background-check-what-it-really-takes-buy-gun 
  Many consider a complete confiscation of firearms into the governments hands. This in itself very well could result in a total police state except for the criminals who don't ever obey the law.{For those who don't know what police state means and also the history of past gun confiscations in this country ,there is this link}...http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/large-scale-gun-confiscation/
  One of the most important protections we have against government tyranny is that we are presumed innocent of any crime until proven guilty, before a jury, in a proper trial. So why then should law abiding citizens be asked to surrender their guns in the interest of public safety?
 Gun control advocates would declare all gun owners guilty without trial, simply for owning guns, even though millions of them have never used their guns to harm another person. Such blanket condemnation is immoral, unfair and contrary to the principles on which America was founded but yet we still hear the cries of gun control. That guns need to be taken away from criminals and no one is saying that they shouldn't be. To me the issue lies in why should guns be confiscated from law abiding citizens? Of which many will never have any occasion to use this firearm nor do they wish to, but this mode of protection is there for them to use if need be. There are also stories of how gun control was the cause of destroying people's lives.....

 Along with stories of how gun control can truly turn law abiding citizens into criminals.

But as the Libertarian Harry Browne states...

So who is right?? What is the right answer when it comes to guns in this country? Should we all give up our guns? Would that make us safer or would that make us prey to the wolves?
 I tend to err on the side of freedom whenever conflicting points of views are presented and this subject is no exception. We have many examples of how not limiting or controlling weapons results in safer communities and country as a whole. Switzerland has the largest amount of armed citizens per capita and the least amount of gun crimes on the face of the Earth..http://www.barefootsworld.net/switzrld.html  Granted, Switzerland doesn't have the melting pot of immigrants that America has, with the huge cultural diversity but I don't think that changes the principle of gun ownership. Yes there is going to be evildoers, no matter what race,color,creed or sex and there always will be,but I do tend to believe that an armed populace is a safer populace.
 Likewise I do believe that if our schools allowed guns to be carried by teachers or veterans or armed policeman on duty,that many of the children who sadly perished would still be alive today. If the psychologically damaged people who have committed these mass shootings could have been thwarted by a law abiding gun carrying citizen or trained professional,far less children would have died, in my opinion. For that matter, the attacker maybe would have thought twice about committing this heinous act, if in fact, there was a threat of deadly force before even one defenseless child was killed. And I'm not alone in that theory. Actor Vince Vaughn recently in an interview with GQ Magazine said just as much.That guns should be allowed in schools for our children's protection.

 The very reason we have the Bill of Rights in this country,as stated at the beginning of this writing was to make sure that our government would not take our rights and property as the British had done. What is to stop our government from taking everything we own by force if we cannot defend ourselves? Just the very thought that possibly, a citizen may be armed halts a lot of would be evildoers before they even begin to do harm. Without that threat of bodily harm and protection using deadly force we become sheep, waiting for the slaughter, either from our own government or from someone who would do us harm. We are giving up our own safety when we give up our guns.http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/see-police-confiscate-guns-from-americans/
  Millions of Americans have guns in their homes and sleep more comfortably because of it. Studies show that where gun ownership is illegal, residential burglaries are higher. A man with a gun in his home is no threat to you if you aren't breaking into it. http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/crime-and-guns/
 The police do not provide security in your home, your business or the street. As Harry Browne wisely stated,they show up most of the time,after the crime to take reports and do detective work. Let me reiterate... After The Crime.The poorer the neighborhood, the riskier it is for peaceful residents.
 Only an armed citizenry can be present in sufficient numbers to prevent or deter violent crime before it starts, or to reduce its spread. Interviews with convicted felons indicate that fear of the armed citizen significantly deters crime. A criminal is more likely to be driven off from a particular crime by an armed victim than to be convicted and imprisoned for it. Thus, widespread gun ownership will make neighborhoods and potentially schools safer.

 ~ Guns are not violent by themselves, they won't suddenly come to life on their own and start shooting off their bullets, it is the intent of the user that is violent or hurtful. ~

 This is undoubtedly true. You can't argue with this logic. If this was not true then we could blame the forks and spoons for allowing a person to eat too much and get fat. No inanimate object is the reason for any one persons behavior, nor does the responsibility fall on said inanimate object. These object are the tools of the user. Either for good or bad, the intention is of the user not the tool.
 So why do we blame guns for everything they are by association, involved in?
 Are we,as a whole, afraid of guns?
 Does knowing that someone could use deadly force against us make us afraid?
 If the answer to the last two questions was yes, then doesn't that answer also hold true for criminals? Just the thought of knowing that someone,let's say for the purpose of discussion a law abiding citizen,even possibly,has the ability to use deadly force against us. That potentially makes a criminal even the slightest bit afraid or more so,and may deter a crime before it starts.
 So why do we blame guns? .............

 Here is a great page on this issue from Debate.org that will help to put both perspectives on why do we,as a populace,blame guns,with both sides of the issue well represented....http://www.debate.org/opinions/do-guns-kill-people

 So after all this, what truly is the answer? I do realize that there is much more to discuss and this is just a very general overview, but these specific issues I will save for a more gun issues detailed posting at a later date, as each separate issue here is a posting all on it's own.

  ~ But my personal view is this ~

 Guns by themselves are not the issue. They are inanimate objects. Gun control advocates talk as if guns could act on their own, as if human beings cannot control them, so the uncontrollable guns must be banished.
 The responsibility should be placed where it belongs,in the person wielding the firearm.If he or she acts responsibly, without attacking others or causing injury negligently, no crime or harm has been done. Leave them in peace. But, if a person commits a crime with a gun, then impose the severest penalties for the injuries done to the victim.Also, hold the negligent gun user fully liable for all harm his negligence does to others.
 Rather than banning guns, the politicians and the police should encourage gun ownership, as well as education and training programs. A responsible, well-armed and trained citizenry is the best protection against domestic crime and the threat of foreign and or domestic invasion. America's founders knew that. We would be wise to follow their wisdom.