Gun Control Compromise
One of the largest debates in this Country of late is "gun control or the right to bear arms".
Which is right? I'm going to just throw a crazy idea out there....what if we thought bigger & less limiting...why does it have to be either or?
Let's do a self-evaluation...what are we so afraid of? We want the right to bear arms because we need to feel safe. We need to feel that we can protect our families.
So the question is, under what circumstance do we really need to kill people? If we could feel safe and protect our families, is it also a requirement that we be able to inflict a fatal wound?
I have given this a lot of thought and I don't think so, I think that in the year 2015 there is enough non-lethal avenues of stopping someone from breaking into your house or harming your loved ones that being able to take another's life is no longer relevant.
What are we "Cave people", are we so unsophisticated and so un-evolved that we can only solve our problems one way? Offer to replace all hand guns, deadly assault rifles, etc. in homes with non-lethal weapons equally as effective at stopping perpetrators.
Lives are saved; accidents are no longer life threatening and gun control issue solved. The reality is, Law enforcement should have moved to non-lethal force a long time ago and should be required to, in order to keep the balance of power.