Quote:I'm not arguing the number of deaths caused by one means over another. Yes, cars are deadlier than guns. No argument there. There's also no call to ban cars or alcohol (a leading factor in auto-related deaths). We tried the latter once. Didn't work. So, we promote responsibility, and establish laws relative to the use of autos and sales of alcohol. Effective? As effective as it can be, given the human quotient of the equation.
... More people are killed by cars in a day, than are killed by guns in a year in the USA. A gun is a tool, like a hammer. It is a tool that is misused by a small segment of society. Control only inconveniences the law abiding. The criminal is unaffected. As for the nut jobs, if there were no guns they would find another way to kill. As for domestic situations, is it more humane to be beaten to death?
Yes, nut jobs will always find new and improved ways of killing, but we don’t have to make it easy for them. Ask the folks in Oklahoma about fertilizer and diesel fuel. We didn’t ban either substance, but people got a bit more diligent about sales of both. I can’t buy Sudafed without talking to a pharmacist first. It’s not a big deal, and it keeps people from buying the stuff by the case to make meth.
Laws don’t exist to protect the law-abiding. They exist to thwart those who are not. Are there ways around? Absolutely. No law is perfect in that regard. Do some of the regulations inconvenience people? Sure, but again–does the inconvenience outweigh the intended control? In most cases, no. Who complains when asked for ID when buying beer? If I’m going to buy a gun, I have no problem with a criminal background check. I don’t have a criminal background. (Speeding tickets–thankfully–don’t count.) If I know I have criminal background and cannot get a gun through legal channels, then I’m forced to try to find other means. That simple roadblock is often enough to thwart many people who look to do things in the heat of the moment.
Example… I’m at a bar, and get into an argument with you. You call my mother names. I get upset, and go across the street to the Wal-Mart to buy a gun in order to defend mom’s honor. I go into Wal-Mart, and the clerk says “I can sell it, but you’ll have to pick it up tomorrow after a quick check.” I push over a display of pillows on my way out the door to vent my frustration, kick an empty bottle on the way to my car, and drive home. Guess what–your life was spared by an “inconvenient” regulation. I’m fairly certain that–had the regulations not been in place and I was able to return to the bar to give mom her proper comeuppance–your survivors would not call any such proposed regulations “inconvenient.” I’d like to think your family would much rather have you sitting at the dinner table than lying 6 feet under it.
“More humane to be beaten to death?” No, but the likelihood of death from mere physical conflict is far, far less than that when there’s a gun involved. Remember–guns were invented because hand-to-hand combat was an ineffective means of subduing the enemy. Look at the number of domestic beatings–thousands reported every day. But both parties live to fight another day. Those parties are perfectly capable of beating each other to death, but they don’t because of the energy needed to do so. Put a weapon in their hand (gun, knife, lead pipe, candlestick in the library), and the chances of a worse outcome increases exponentially.
Later,
K
