Questions for the anti-gun crowd

Indeed there has been much debate and discussion about guns in America these days.  This issue has been divided between the pro-gunners and the anti-gunners, and there seems to be no middle ground here.

The pro-gunners want to stand on the Second Amendment and the anti-gunners want to ban certain legal firearms as being too much, or too dangerous, for private ownership.  The argument also covers the issue of mental health in America, ranging from the dangers of psychotropic drugs and their effects on people, and background checks designed to weed-out those who should not be allowed to own legal firearms.  (Which, by the way, are legit and are fully supported by the pro-gunners.)

So, seeking to cut through the rhetoric and the emotionally-driven screeching of the anti-gunners, allow me to ask some pointed and purposed questions, designed to really force people to stop and consider if their anti-gun stance holds up to possible real world situations.

----------

1.  If you are a mother, and an armed criminal were to threaten the life or lives of your child or children, and you had a legal and private firearm, would you shoot said criminal?  Would you do whatever it takes to protect them from harm and possibly death, or would you allow death to come to them?

2.  When a criminal breaks into your house, you call 911 if possible, because you know that cops will arrive soon and these cops have guns.  Why not simply have your own gun in the house to defend yourself and keep your family safe?

3.  If your children attend a local school, and a criminal or madman enters said school with the purpose of killing your kids and the kids of others, wouldn't you want someone there who has the capability of defending and protecting your kids, say, with a firearm of their own?

4.  If you are in a situation, any situation, wherein an armed criminal wishes to do you harm, would you seek to dialogue with this person or would you defend yourself with firearms?

5.  Knowing that some banks, sports arenas, politicians, and government buildings are protected by armed guards, wouldn't you want that same protection for your chidren?  You can always make more money.  Sports teams are just for entertainment.  Politicians come and go.  Government buildings can be rebuilt.  But what about your children?  Are they not more important than all these other things?  Why accept protecting them with firearms when none of these things really matter at the end of the day?  Family, however, is forever.  Family is worth protecting.

6.  To say that only police should be allowed to carry guns is saying that you wish for a true police state.  You see, when only police carry guns, and no legal citizens are allowed to legally carry privately-owned guns, you create a police state.  Is this acceptable to you?

7.  By seeking to impose tougher regulations and restrictions on certain firearms within America, determining what should be legal and illegal, aren't you setting the stage for something bigger, ie, the confiscation and removal of privately-owned firearms, whether they be semi-automaic or single-action?  This is a slippery slope.  Are you prepared to dismantle the Second Amendment out of emotionally-driven knee-jerk reactionism that focuses on the immediate but lacks vision for the future?

8.  By punishing legal gun owners, you are doing no damage to illegal gun owners.  The stance that the anti-gunners havetaken is illogical at best.  Are you prepared to live in an America that has outlawed guns, making it so only outlaws have guns?

9.  The Gannett Company, Inc. has allowed the names of private citizenry to be published publicly, exposing and revealing their gun permit status or lack of gun permit status, in three New York State counties.  In doing this, many law officers have had their privacy compromised, leaving themselves and their families (wives, children), open to real danger from the friends and associates of currently incarcerated individuals.  Would you want that for your family?

And lastly-

10.  Say you were at a local store, standing in line with your children (or by yourself), awaiting your turn, and the person in front of you pulled out a handgun and began to threaten those in the store with it, saying they were going to shoot everyone.  Now say I was standing behind you, and I drew my gun, shooting said assailant and bringing them down to the floor, wherein they were apprehended and subdued.  Would you thank me, or would you be angry at me for having a legal gun and removing the threat to you and your children, quite possibly saving your life and theirs?

----------

In closing allow me to say that Sandy Hook is a horrific tragedy that has left many families angry, heartbroken, and in a grief that is looking for solutions.  I get that.  I do.  I know what it feels like to lose a loved one to a gun, through suicide.  I also know what it is to defend and protect using a gun, through the military.  But I cannot, and will not, vilify or glorify guns as being either inherently evil or inherently good.  A gun cannot squeeze its own trigger.  It is an inanimate object, a tool, a resource for certain situations that call for what it can do.  In the hands of a good man, a gun produces good fruit and peace.  In the hands of evil men, guns produce terror and death.

The argument that the Second Amendment does not give us, as legal and qualified citizens, the right and privilege to own private firearms is asinine.  It does.  It always has.  It always will.  Even the SCOTUS has ruled that the Second Amendment is for individual citizens.

There are bad people out there, folks.  They want to steal, rape, rob, kill, torture, murder, and terrorize the innocent.  Wayne LaPierre took a lot of criticism from the expected crowd when he said that a good guy with a gun is the solution to a bad guy with a gun.  No legislation, no rallies, no petitions, no social activist groups can change that.

While it may sound distasteful, when it comes to dealing with gun violence, the only logical solution is gun intervention.  We all know what happens when a madman enters a Gun Free Zone and kills without restraint or resistance because there was no one on site to protect the innocent with a firearm.  Let's see what would happen if we changed that.

Thanks for reading!  I look forward to your answers.