I am not a fan of gun control but I do realize there is some merit to the opposition's side. Anti gun control is really the lesser of two evils, in my opinion.
On one hand you could let the State take away all guns and trust the government to keep us safe. That does not sit well in many people's minds, even if the government was 2x as efficient. The fact of the matter is eventually corruption would seep into the system, and then what would we be able to do? Tyranny would have quite the advantage and it would be difficult to stop. I'm not saying that gun control would bring about immediate tyranny; that scenario isn't logical at all. It would happen over a very slow period of time; it would hardly be noticeable until the government is truly corrupt, then it would not be pretty. But equally important is preserving the second amendment itself. Our Bill of Rights should never be tampered with because they are what makes America... America! The geniuses who founded our country knew much more about the human condition than most of us do now. It is a very wise idea to put your faith into their knowledge in regards to the Bill of Rights.
So without gun control we are left with something like our current situation. Maniacs are extremely few in number, but they are still capable of buying a heavy arsenal wherever they please and wreaking havoc on the public. This is the price we must pay to have such protection against tyranny and other forms of corruption. Like I said, it is the lesser of two evils. Would you prefer the rare maniac or the slow but inevitable government takeover? Maybe not even by our government, but a foreign government. Still, the point remains the same. Both choices are horrible but it is common sense to choose the rare maniac over the government takeover. And we can only hope in the future that people who have concealed weapons will be able to defend the public against any other maniacs out there. If they are wearing ballistic armor from head to toe like this man was, well then it may be futile. But most attackers are not so resourceful, so all we can do is hope and have faith in people.
Determining what kinds of weapons the public is allowed to use is an interesting predicament. It used to be so simple with those single shot guns and our very small militias. Do I really believe people need to carry around automatic guns to "defend themselves from government tyranny"? Not at all. Semi automatic? Maybe. All I know is that a line needs to be drawn somewhere, but at the very least semi automatic weapons and down should be permitted. Perhaps semi automatic should be restricted, only time will tell. But if semi automatic is eventually restricted, the people must fight to make sure that nothing else is thrown into that group. Otherwise we will see the second option that I mentioned give rise to a very powerful and corrupt group of people.
How does everyone else feel? Does anyone else think that in another 30 years we may have to admit that semi automatics create a risk too great for public safety? Obviously they would be sold publicly again if we had the same types of attacks on the civilians of the U.S. with maniacs using semi automatics, but if it did prevent them what would you say?
Let me know what you guys think. It is a very fine line so it is a tough debate.