HoodProphet

I think a discussion on guns is long overdue. I personally support the purchasing of basic firearms, such as pistols, shotguns, and weaponry designed for hunting. However, I am unsure about rifles, such as AR-15s. The logic is that such weapons are for defense, but it seems a bit much for home defense. As someone stated, "If you need an AR-15 to protect your home, you need to move to a better neighborhood. I live in one of the worse neighborhoods in America, and I don't see many scenerios where an AR-15 would be required to protect myself and family. In fact, the only scenerio that I can think where I would need such a weapon is for fighting off the police or U.S. Army, which I don't believe is a likely scenerio. But, even if so, it would be suicidal.I also find it strange that most gun fanatics live in safe neighborhoods. Most are afraid of staying in certain neighborhoods after night fall. I think there is only one explaination: They have an interest (almost like a hobby) in guns that have absolutely nothing to do with self defense. I am not a person who believes that outlawing guns will prevent crime, but I do believe that certain guns have no place in a civilized society. Certain weapons are designed for military combat, and not to be used amongst common members of a civilized society. If someone has a right to own an assault rifle, then why not a fighter jet or tank? The same logic follows that if you need a fighter jet or tank to protect your home, then perhaps you should move. I would understand the self defense argument when discussing high powered rifles if we lived in a society based on the state of nature. If there was no government or police to rely on for protection. Of course, some justify their possession of such high powered weapons with a "just in case" mentality. However, why not a tank, jet, or nuclear bomb...just in case?Now the reason I support the ownership of basic firearms is that they are needed for self defense. It is something that I view as self evident and has been proven time and time again. An old woman with a gun is most likely alive in the case of a home invasion, while she is more likely dead armless. And of course, the classical argument is that laws banning guns do not prevent criminals from obtaining them and using them on everyday citizens. Assault rifles are less accessible to criminals due to cost and others factors, but handguns are not. Therefore, I there is definately a need for law abiding citizens to have the means to equalize the balance of power. But, the primary problem with some gun owners is that they are irresponsible. For example, in the Connecticut shooting, the mother of the mass murder gain her son access to her guns and even took her son to the gun range to practice. That is not proper conduct for a responsible gun owner, especially when there is an individual who is mentally unstable in the home. Where were the gun locks? Why were these guns so easily obtained?If there should be new laws, the most important should deal with the storage of weapons and their accessibility to individuals who do not have legal ownership of the weapon in question.