The trouble in Gun Control is the two extremes dominate the argument. Some people feel there is a necessity to own a .50 caliber machine gun, others think you need to acquire a permit to own a daisy pump and outlaw the beebees.
The NRA's stance is always seen as an extreme, but their stance is actually right. What their aim is, to prevent gun regulation from denying people's rights and turning law-abiding citizens into criminals.
In Illinois recently, a law was almost passed that would require a gun owner to carry a willful negligence insurance policy for no less than 1 million dollars per gun owned. No such policy exists from insurance, and even Lloyd's won't touch such a policy.
Its the equivalent of taking out a policy on a piece of rope I buy in the event I might decide to hang myself or someone from that rope. It makes absolutely no sense insurance-wise, and it was a governments attempt to ban through regulation.
@Hellstromm, the What If's doesn't really apply to whether or not you choose to own a gun. You use whats available to you, as martial arts also teaches you. For some people, if they were to encounter a person like Richard Ramirez in their house-the best they could do is call 911. Others may choose to use their fighting skills. Others may choose to point a loaded weapon. Martial Arts definitely does not teach you to not throw a punch in self defense for fear you might break something in your hand.
Guns are powerful, and sadly, to quote from Spiderman's uncle, with great power comes great responsibility. The trouble is, not everyone's responsible. People should be required to achieve reasonable certifications to own certain weapons. The trouble is that those certifications are not abused as a way to outlaw guns.
i.e. Those who own a 9mm for a personal home defense weapon should have to retake the test.
