• BaldProphet
    link
    fedilink
    11 year ago

    I believe that “gun free zones” should only exist with the presence of robust security systems. Having an easily-entered school with little, if any physical security designated as a “gun free zone” makes it a target for the fringe minority of people who have a desire to commit mass murder.

    I also think that more meaningful social improvements need to be made, including addressing housing affordability, wealth equality, access to affordable health care, and addressing the decades-long mental health crisis.

    I won’t ever be supportive of a ban on guns for the same reason the United States refuses to sign on to certain arms treaties (such as the ones against cluster munitions and land mines): I refuse to go along with anything that would limit my ability to defend myself. The government won’t guarantee my safety, so why should I give up the most effective tool for preventing myself from being a victim of violence?

    • Semi-Hemi-Demigod
      link
      fedilink
      0
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t care what you wouldn’t be supportive of. I care that the only people who seem to want to do anything about this are the ones pushing gun bans. The people who like guns don’t seem to give a shit, at least not based on how they vote.

      Also, once we harden targets like schools, won’t they move on to softer ones like grocery stores, churches, and night clubs?

      • BaldProphet
        link
        fedilink
        01 year ago

        Flip side of that argument: Once we ban guns, won’t they just find other weapons to commit murder with? I’m confident that they will.

        • Semi-Hemi-Demigod
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          Ah, and now we’re back the good ol’ “But then they’ll use knives” argument.

          Round and round we go, ever since Columbine