This post might get me shot...

Here I am again with my semi regular post on current hot topics, where we get to civily discuss, elaborate, and correct each other on controversial issues. And today's discussion is on.... GUN CONTROL! YAYYYY! This time with helpful indicators to specifically discuss, labeled: (a)-(i).

So I've noticed a trend among conservatives and liberals.

Liberal: we need gun control to stop the spread of violence.
Conservative: I think that is false because:
a)

http://www.dumpaday.com/…/u…/2013/02/making-guns-illegal.jpg
"Making guns illegal will take them off the streets. We should make drugs illegal too!"
b)

http://www.funnymemes.com/…/2…/04/So-if-guns-kill-people.png
"So if guns kill people I guess pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and spoons make people fat."
and sometimes
c) The founding fathers made the second amendment to ensure the government does not oppress it's people.
d) area's with higher gun control actually have higher rates of shooting.

now liberals don't seem to want to respond to this so my Facebook feed has become a bit of a broken record of "We need to stop the killing! Stronger control!" and then memes.

Seeing as on my Facebook feed the conservatives have the final say on things I started thinking what the implications of these knee jerk memes meant.

a) If guns were illegal only criminals would have them. First off, that would be true for a short time. But I've noticed a fundamental difference between guns and drugs. Guns and ammunition are a lot more difficult to manufacture in your basement. Also, it would be a lot more difficult for someone to carry guns and ammunition without being noticed. I know people who can point to someone with a gun under their clothes. Granted a person with the intent to kill with guns could merely carry their gun in a bag or their car or whatever. So basically every gun taken off the street would be one gun permanently out of the hands of the criminals, and every bullet fired would be one less bullet that criminals could kill with.

b) That's right, guns don't kill people, but they make it a lot easier for someone to kill. Yes, yes, I know that there are people who have killed ton's of people with knives or bombs or whatever, just like there are people who's grandma's smoke and she's over 100! Gun's in the hands of someone with the intent to kill are going to be a lot more deadly than a knife. And bombs are much harder to come by/ manufacture effectively.

c) There is some truth to this, but it seems to be that in today's weapon climate, a persons guns are going to do them little good against drones, planes, tanks, bombs, etc.

d) This may be true from state to state, but from country to country (where guns are a lot less likely to cross borders) according to this data there seems to be little correlation.
http://www.theguardian.com/…/gun-homicides-ownership-world-… (thanksTraci)
the correlation seems to more with poverty and education than it is to gun ownership.

On the other hand (e) giving our guns up would be 100% putting our trust in the government and government officials. We would have to trust that our government would not attack or oppress their own people. Such as police officers. With this in mind, the only people that would be able to conduct a coup, if that time came, would be the military. Disarming the government at this juncture seems like a catastrophic mistake, cause our enemies certainly aren't going to disarm themselves.

f) There are some instances of good people defending themselves with legally acquired guns preventing a criminal from doing any or further damage.

g) Gun's only account for a small percentage of the total deaths in the united states especially considering how many people own guns.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

And the last argument I can think of is in favor of gun control

h) It could be argued that suicide, accident, and crime of passion fatalities would go down. If guns were completely banned.

These are a lot of black and white arguments, but there is certainly some gray area that would be more acceptable. Such as:

i) making background checks more accessible, so private citizens can safely conduct gun sales between one another (so long as a persons privacy is not infringed to highly, such as an app that one types their social security number into that shows their picture that simply says "yes" or "no" in it for whether or not they are eligible for gun ownership, eligibility would be determined by mental state and criminal background.)

There are probably more arguments to be made but I think that would do it. I just wanted to try and cover as much of the issue as I could think of. Obviously I have not included everything so please feel free to constructively add, correct, elaborate, or discuss this issue with me. Thanks!

(side note: thanks Jake-Kait for the constructive conversation on this topic!)
also one more link for fun from Traci http://www.theguardian.com/…/mass-shootings-america-gun-vio…