A few friends and I were discussing the idea of gun control the other day and there were the same old arguments thrown out on both sides. The best of which against gun control was the idea that the population has to be able to stand up against the government if they become too authoritarian or a President decides he's not going to have elections anymore or something.

But then we still have the problems w/ people getting mugged, pulling out their guns to defend $20, and someone gets shot. Having a population that is armed to the teeth ensures that more situations will descent into lethality quicker than if the population was not walking around armed.

So what about this - University education becoming a pre-requisite for anyone who wants to own a gun (other than rifles for hunting, which anyone can still enjoy). On this group of people, who have already proved that they can think rationally and reasonably, there would be very few restrictions on the type of guns or weapons they could have. This would also ensure that guns will be kept (mostly) out of the hands of gangs and other common criminals.

Until the number of people that has been killed by common criminals exceeds the number of people that has been killed by their own governments, there is no point in even continuing this discussion, in my opinion.

What's the problem with that? People who attempt to rob from others should be shot, and hopefully end up killed or paralyzed for life. They made the choice to commit a crime, and if they pick the wrong target, too bad for them. This also has a wonderful deterrent effect to other criminals. I don't lose any sleep over it, you shouldn't either.

I carry a gun(s) at all times and won't hesitate to defend my life and property accordingly. Yes, I would shoot someone who was attempting to rob me rather than comply, even if I was only carrying $20. What the person is stealing is irrelevant. I don't appease or negotiate with criminals, it only emboldens them. That shit needs to be nipped in the bud right away.

O rly? It hasn't been a problem anywhere where concealed carry laws have been relaxed.

Bad idea. Just like with Jim Crow voting laws, this would snowball into stricter and stricter laws and the eventual confiscation of all civilian owned firearms. Besides, how would this deter criminals who acquire their guns illegally anyway? The thousands of gun laws we already have on the books have no effect on them.

You have to realize that the crime rate in this country really isn't that high, and most of our crime can be written off under the "good riddance" factor. Once you've accepted that, if you're still interested in reducing the rate of common crime, why not push for the abolishment of drug prohibition instead? That would cut the crime rate in this country by more than half literally overnight.

These are the same old bullshit arguments and ideas. You haven't really brought anything new to the table.

__________________
Don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul.

I wasn't aware that only arming those who are University educated had already been debated. I apologize.

Parallax -

Throughout history which has claimed more lives; Cholera or MRSA?

Obviously, Cholera. But in a liberal Western democracy, which do you have more reason to fear today? Would you sit around doing nothing to improve the hygene of hospitals while you wait for MRSA to "catch up" with cholera, or target the one which actually poses a threat TODAY?

The issue is annoying because everyone thinks their right regardless of what side their on...

The truth is there is no right answer, you have to give/take with either control or freedom. Its really just a matter of what you think is worse, either being deprived of what many people see as a natural right and the feeling "defenselessness" or having a higher casualty rate and a greater fear of being shot.

I don't have a fear or being shot so I don't really care about guns. However, I feel my opinion might change if I lived in another part of America where gun violence is a reality and everyday concern (i.e. inner city)

When everything is relative to specific people and locations its going to be a problem to create a national law or even a state law. Gun laws should probably be decided at the local level if you ask me.

I guess that would mean a lot of police and military would not be allowed to have guns, which would probably be a good thing. I would support some gun control measures if they applied equally to the military and police as well as private citizens, but I could not support this idea. I can't justify denying someone of their constitutional rights because they can't afford to go to college.

Yeah but you have to consider the fact that you're probably going to get shot with an illegal gun. Or stabbed. Or beaten.

I don't like how "gun violence" gets its own special designation. Violence is violence.

But how true is that? I would need a statistic to truly accept that. However, valid point on the violence thing, its just that guns are 100x more deadly than knives. Anyone can shoot a gun but you need toto know how to use a knife to be effective with it.

But like I said before, its all relative, theres going to be some give/take with either position on gun control, its just your position on it. I'm not affected, I don't care about guns.

well, yes, and no. Although anyone can use a gun, they may not be effective with it until they work on their technique, practice with the gun and "get to know it". Because nobody wants to pull a gun out only to figure out that seeing as they not only forgot to rack the gun, but forgot to turn off the safety they're screwed.
And its a similar situation with knives, unless the other guy has some experience too, and is a bit bigger, then he holds a challenge.
Personally, I believe the right to keep and bear arms is very important to the maintenance of individual freedoms and the defense of oneself and one's family.

Yeah I'm all for having guns. I've just always heard don't use a knife unless you know how to or it will get you killed.