Some people passionately defend gun ownership without restrictions.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) has been so successful at projecting itself and gun owners as a majority, Congress and Presidents have been reluctant to impose restrictions on gun ownership. How did this happen?
Only about one in ten people went hunting last year. It is a dying sport.
But, hunters have been able to position themselves as patriots and portray hunting as a patriotic activity. Any restriction on guns, even if unrelated to guns used for hunting, has been cast as an attack on patriotism.
Hunting is not the only argument for gun ownership. The case most passionatly made is guns are needed to defend ourselves against our government.
While laws restricting the kind of guns people can own or use doesn’t seem like it would solve all innocent deaths by guns, it does seem to me it would reduce the number. If it would reduce the number, wouldn’t it be OK to try out some new gun laws?
“Absolutely not,” would be answer of gun rights people. “The deaths that result from guns are merely collateral damage from the need to protect ourselves from our government.”
There is an argument people need guns to protect themselves and their property. There are people who need to carry guns, but statistics show these guns often cause deaths of innocent people, including those carrying the gun.
I don’t own a gun for a simple reason. I’m safer without one.