Everyone feel free to add items to the FAQ, as per netiquette. --JP
We're building a FAQ here to file as a resource to give a base for arguing.
We should try to flesh it out by providing one good data item for
each point. The only people who likely couldn't contribute to either side
are the ignorant, bad debaters or emotionally blinded. : ) --JP
> 1. Guns should be controlled to reduce crime.
> 2. There is not enough need for the kind of defense or other uses that guns
> offer to offset the danger of leaving them uncontrolled.
> 3. The best control is a total ban. Otherwise, it is greatly limited access,
> licensing and traceability.
> 4. The presence of firearms is a direct cause of violence.
> 5. Firearms have *no* place in a society with a professional police force.
> 6. Firearms are inherently dangerous products that should be removed from
> the society at large.
> 7. The costs of firearm violence greatly outweigh their perceived benefits.
> 1. Guns should not be controlled so that free citizens can do with
> them as they lawfully please.
> 2. Guns are good in many ways. Freedom opens the door to creativity,
> so we won't presume to try to define just how many benefits freedom has
> to provide goodness. Just as a start, used lawfully, guns are good for: defense,
> food-gathering, sport, fun, collecting, history, craftsmanship, manufacture,
> invention, imitation.
> 3. Guns help with defense and help to insure freedom. One has a right
> and duty to safely defend oneself as one best judges, within reason. Guns are safe
> within such parameters.
> 4. Regular gun laws have always provided reasonable access-limits and accountability without
impinging on the freedom of lawabiding adults to own, carry, use firearms
for work, defense or sport.