How are we to weight the differences in gun control? Is more control over the weapons some people say is our constitutional right to have needed? Or is a less constrictive approach needed to insure the safety of any and all families in America. At a glance both arguments appear to have validity and supportive reasoning behind them, but as we dig deeper we can easily see that both arguments are fundamentally flawed by nature.
Scenario number one: the degradation of gun control. Allowing for easier access, for more people, to more powerful guns. This seems to solve a number of safety issues concerning burglaries, rapes and other forms of forceful human aggression sometimes displayed. Any man in his right mind would want his family safe at night. In turn purchasing a gun he sees as purchasing safety for his family. There is no doubt about it that having a hand gun in your dresser drawer or in you closet is a incredible deterrent for anyone breaking and entering or worse. But when do the means stop justifying the ends?.
It stops when parents leave loaded guns in reach of children who have not yet fully learned the value of human life. It stops when a man who purchases a gun turns and uses it for a robbery instead of protecting himself. It stops when a mentally unstable woman goes through a stressful situation and turns a gun on her kids then herself. It stops when to kids use these guns to shoot up a school. The answer is obvious: we cannot have such weapons readily available to the general public. .
Tommy Lee Jones said it best when he said, "a person is smart, people are dumb and irrational". As a people we are inherently evil, there is no way around it. There is simply no way that we can trust ourselves, as a people, to have lax gun control. Some one is always going to screw it up, indefinitely. .
But nevertheless the Constitution clearly states our right to bear arms. It is this constitutional amendment from which the National Rifle Association or NRA draws most of its ammunition.