(no subject)
i am really against guns. Stricter gun control. people tell me that the answer is give everyone their own. i kinda think about it, and that makes it so that every american is for themself. people say, what if your being threated and they have a gun and you dont. i just say if they had intent to kill me they would of shot me before they grab my wallet. its not the answer. more guns isnt the answer. it brings more problems to the table. when instead of a person actually killing someone with a knife or whatever where there was cold blood evidence. you come into a new world of intent to kill or self defense. How do you prove self defense? do you say because he had a gun pointed in my direction i have the right to KILL this person. to kill, to end life. terrible when you think about it. someone breaks into your house. and stabs your dog or whatever kill the guy. but if he is just after some money does it mean the world? does it mean taking a life. people give me situations that seem just to killing someone. over what? stuff you own? now if the person went after your kids to leave no witnesses thats different, you could electrocute the guy for all i care. i think about it on a global scale too. Some countries have WMD's the ultimate end to life.(gun ends life to). Now we use WMD threats to deture possible threats in country. Now If every one had a WMD would that solve anything? deterrence no longer works, threats no longer works. so you hope no one fires first. but if you fire first does that make you the aggressor? What if the country that was fired at but you put troops on your border in order to prevent an attack and possibly attack a country but you only had the intent but never did, and the other country PREemptively attacks to prevent the other country from attacking. So who's at fault. Kinda how i feel about guns... i just dont think giving everyone one will not solve it.