Challenge. Argue the opposite of your true opinion on gun control. Argue genuinely, not just using sarcasm. Why? Perhaps this will create a bit of appreciation for the opposing side, and alleviate some of those scathing diatribes often seen on these forums. There's far right and far left, and not much of a middle at all. Or it might let you see what the other side is probably thinking and let you find ways to disprove those basic facts the argument is based on rather than trading unrelated insults. If none of that convinces you, think of it as a writing exercise, then. Persuasive essay writing or whatever it's called. Naturally, no trolling. And no citing random facts without some sort of backup. Though it might seem logical to think that decreasing the number of weapons in the US might decrease gun death rates, the truth is quite the opposite. During the LA riots of '92 it was seen that shopkeepers with AR-15 guns were the ones who mostly escaped the general chaos and looting. Additionally, the one thing common to almost all shootings is not mental illness - see Fort Hood, Texas. It is the existence of a guns-banned area, within which innocents are unable to properly defend themselves against armed intruders. It has been shown that the more guns in an area, the less crime - if you were the criminal, would you try anything stupid if you knew several people around you could easily defend themselves? The best solution is not to eliminate the guns - rather, strengthen the background checks required for these guns and ensure that no one under reasonable suspicion can own a gun, while innocent citizens can always defend themselves if something happens. Sources: http://michelangelo.com/2012/12/banning-assault-weapons/ http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf -lazypuppy
