That shows that in his time, a civilized Greece faced the same dilemma we are discussing today. I have found no law(s) banning swords in ancient Greece. Yet, Greece still lives today.
Since the tragedy at Newtown, the issue of gun control has resurfaced with a vengeance. Everyone from the common citizen to well known celebrities have given their input with varying degrees of extremes. I do agree that something must be done to avoid future senseless acts of violence against innocent people , but this issue is not about guns, its’ about senseless violence by people with mental and emotional issues when they get an agenda and get their hands on guns.
Violence has been around since the dawn of man and will continue to exist regardless of the method. These unstable people we’d like to control can just as easily kill a lot of people with a knife, explosives, chemicals, or blow up https://loan-on.com/payday-loans-nm/ a building full of innocent people. If unstable people have a point to make, they will make it with or without guns. They will either find a way around any ban or come up with some other sick way to make their point (like the hijackers). What they come up with, may be even more gruesome than people being shot. Remember folks, that’s why they’re unstable, they don’t think rationally. With that being said, I don’t believe any law or policy will be as effective as most anti gun people would have us believe.
The 9 -11 hijackers killed hundreds of innocent people, and they were only armed with box cutters!
While its’ not fair to evenly compare the American policy with Mexican policy, but, the principal remains the same. Violence is violence and people who suffer with mental and emotional problems and have agendas will express themselves regardless of any ban, law, or policy and human nature is a commonality we all share, be it good or evil.
“Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws” . Plato”.
Who and how will mentally instability be determined? At what point do character quirks stop and instability start? What about a very clever psychopaths such as Ted Bundy, Ed Kemper, or Ted Kaczynski who can easily pass a psychological evaluation and fool psychiatrists, or worse, the awkward reclusive kid who no one realizes is a psychopath because he’s never been evaluated. I don’t believe for one minute that there is one set method to determine who is at risk for a psychotic episode incident involving a mass shooting or some other gruesome crime.
The founding fathers wanted to create a nation where people were free to live their lives without fear of oppression from a government with a military, armed citizens assured that government authoritarian rule would not happen such as it did in England
As of 2 days before this posting, many of the suggestions on gun control I have heard are based purely on emotion, politics, personal beliefs or flat out irrational. Any new anti violence/gun law policy based on these traits cannot be used in consideration during the making of any policy, much less, one that will deny people their rights. Already many overzealous radicals have suggested banning all weapons across the board. In a perfect world, that may sound like a good solution, but in today’s imperfect world, where there are too many what ifs, exceptions, and shades of grey, and not to mention the 2 nd Amendment of the Constitution, such a radical policy would only apply to legally licensed gun permit holders and those who have legitimate needs to have a gun.
Many gun control lobbyists and anti gun people want to attack the issue of gun control at constitutional level and trying to repeal the 2 nd Amendment. They claim that the amendment is archaic and was written for a different time when single shot muskets were the norm. I agree, but much of its intent still holds merit today. What these anti gun people fail to realize is that the when our founding father wrote the amendment, it was intended as a well-regulated armed militia composed of all able bodied men to defend against aggressors against the colonies and the government. YES, the government.