A response to a comment I received on the blog, "A man tries to make gun-control proponents look dumb through his 'smart' aleck experiment, but makes himself look dumb in the process"
On April 12th of last year, I wrote a blog, entitled, "A man tries to make gun-control proponents look dumb through his 'smart' aleck experiment, but makes himself look dumb in the process," which can be viewed here - http://thekind-heartedsmartaleck.blogspot.com/2013/04/a-man-tries-to-make-gun-control.html?showComment=1398357016839#c8342953763320375809.
A few days ago, I received this response to that very blog:
"He was not saying it for people who think that it is both the gun and the person who are killing is saying this for the people who want to take guns away even from people who are totally capable with a gun. If you don't want a gun fine have it your way but I have every right by the law to have a gun and I would gladly use it in protection and defense of my family. Even so, if gun laws were passed the types of people who shoot up people, do you really think a law against guns is going to stop them it will hinder them but it won't stop them it just takes guns away from the people who would use them to protect themselves who would follow the law. And just so you know if my spelling is off I am a dyslexic 16 year old boy, so sorry."
Shortly thereafter, I responded to the comment, but have yet to hear back and am uncertain if he/she saw it, so I thought I'd post a separate blog about the matter, just in case this person wasn't notified about the reply.
In my response, I wrote the following:
"With regard to your comment, I have just a few questions:
1) How would expanding background checks and the like take guns away from law-abiding citizens, as it seems you contend they would?
2) Are you in favor of written, vision, and driving tests before one is able to attain a license? If so, why shouldn't there be similar-type tests in order to entrust a person with another potentially deadly weapon, such as a gun?
3) If we go by the philosophy that there would be no point in strengthening gun-control laws because it's inevitable that criminals will break these laws, what point is there of having any laws? Isn't it inevitable that any and every law will be broken at least once? Given that, isn't the point of laws to lessen the likelihood, and with that, the frequency, that such unruly acts occur?"
If the individual whom wrote the comment would like to provide answers for these questions, feel free to do so, and I'll attempt to reply shortly thereafter.
A few days ago, I received this response to that very blog:
"He was not saying it for people who think that it is both the gun and the person who are killing is saying this for the people who want to take guns away even from people who are totally capable with a gun. If you don't want a gun fine have it your way but I have every right by the law to have a gun and I would gladly use it in protection and defense of my family. Even so, if gun laws were passed the types of people who shoot up people, do you really think a law against guns is going to stop them it will hinder them but it won't stop them it just takes guns away from the people who would use them to protect themselves who would follow the law. And just so you know if my spelling is off I am a dyslexic 16 year old boy, so sorry."
Shortly thereafter, I responded to the comment, but have yet to hear back and am uncertain if he/she saw it, so I thought I'd post a separate blog about the matter, just in case this person wasn't notified about the reply.
In my response, I wrote the following:
"With regard to your comment, I have just a few questions:
1) How would expanding background checks and the like take guns away from law-abiding citizens, as it seems you contend they would?
2) Are you in favor of written, vision, and driving tests before one is able to attain a license? If so, why shouldn't there be similar-type tests in order to entrust a person with another potentially deadly weapon, such as a gun?
3) If we go by the philosophy that there would be no point in strengthening gun-control laws because it's inevitable that criminals will break these laws, what point is there of having any laws? Isn't it inevitable that any and every law will be broken at least once? Given that, isn't the point of laws to lessen the likelihood, and with that, the frequency, that such unruly acts occur?"
If the individual whom wrote the comment would like to provide answers for these questions, feel free to do so, and I'll attempt to reply shortly thereafter.
Comments
Post a Comment