Response to a Response to a Response
This came entitled “the final word”. But it doesn’t have to be :).
Okay well someone’s certainly been brainwashed by saying the pledge of allegiance every morning for 13 years…. There IS a difference between banning guns and banning free speech. A BIG difference. I guess though you see the word “ban” and the ol’ uncle sam gene kicks in. You say that things like music, videogames, movies influenced the kids to do wrong. And I totally agree we should not ban these things. You are right. People get influenced in different ways, and its ridiculous to think we should ban a certain movie or rock music which mentions death because it happened to affect certain people. However you lumped guns in there with that list: “Just because some psycho’s are influenced negatively by some movies, music or guns is NOT A VALID REASON to limit everyone’s access to those materials.” You think the child killers are “influenced” by guns???? What does that even mean?? Guns arent an influence, they are how the influences are acted upon.”Psychos” are influenced by things in society (which we should not ban) and these influences come to fruition in blowing people away with GUNS. If the guns were NOT THERE there would be a lower chance of them managing to kill people. Of course people will always be able to get guns if they really want them, but it will be harder for teens (ie: they cant take it out of their dad’s closet) who are acting on all the afore mentioned influences. We cannot ban free speech, types of music or games, you are right. Not all will react to these things so irrationally. But when an object which is designed to kill is used by these people, why not remove that object from society? You call guns “materials” we should all have access to. You speak of guns like they are books in Nazi Germany… like everyone has a right to have a gun as if it is part of being an american or something. Guns are designed to KILL. Sure some people hunt with them or kill sick cows with them, but their primary purpose is to MURDER. Why does “liberty” under your definition include the right to have the ability to murder? The right to risk having a kid blow his head off with dad’s gun which is meant to protect the family? The right to risk DEATH? If you ask me the FREEDOM TO WALK INTO A SCHOOL AND NOT GET BLOWN AWAY or the FREEDOM TO NOT HAVE TO SPEND THE DAY CRYING BECAUSE YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT YOUR CHILDREN AT SCHOOL is a far greater liberty than the freedom to own a gun. Even if banning guns only stops one kid getting to a gun, and saves one life, or stops one accident it is worth it. And cheers to Inferno for pointing out the difference between Australia and the US. We both have marylin manson, we both have Doom, we both have Childs Play movies… but Australia has banned guns… and we have an almost nonexistent rate of death by automatic weapons. So I guess I want this argument to stop now. You have your view Ill have mine (and we are clogging up the journal). All i am saying is look at what freedom truly is. Dont confuse owning guns with some glorious cause. Maybe that pledge will be shaken out of you when the next 25 kids get killed, and you’ll realise you may have saved them if you had taken guns out of society.
Phil
1:37pm (GMT +10.00) tomorrow 
