Originally Posted by ClydebankBlitz
Two people asked me "Are you going to take on a bunch of armed guys with a machete?" and "What does the intruder have?".
This is where anti-guns comes into effect. The intruder doesnt have a gun because guns are illegal and unavailable. Here it is legal to own a shotgun with a farm. They wouldnt be massive and clunky and ineffective for robbing a house. Hand guns are close to none existant, although I do have a drug dealer mate who brought two back from abroad (Don't judge me!
). Pretty much, anyone who's breaking into my house doesnt have a gun because gun control is so large. In America, it's a gun fight, because since guns are available, the intruder himself will have a gun. You're not taking a 50/50 risk into your hands. Who shoots first, who is more accurate etc. If you arent trained with the gun then you have just as much chance of dying as he does. If someone breaks into my house, they will at most have a blade, which a machete or a baseball bat would easily out match.
The only reason guns are needed for protection is because guns are available for criminals.
Stopping guns right now in America doesn't = criminals have no guns, that's silly. There's an entire black market for guns, there's millions of guns lying around in American homes, so many that the government wouldn't be able to track down and get or even attempt to spend the money doing so. Criminals who wanted a gun could get a gun without much issue regardless of if it's legal or not.
You know what banning guns would do? It would create an even bigger black market and an even bigger demand for them (from criminals and gun enthusiasts alike), and instead of being sold in stores, they would be sold on the streets (they already are, but far more so).
Your solution solves nothing and just makes it where people who like guns for legitimate reasons don't have legal access to them.