On my facebook page, some of my ‘friends’ posted things like: when a person is fat we don’t blame the spoon so why blame guns and when there’s a bombing we blame the bomber, not the bomb. There are some major leaps in logic being made with these arguments against gun control. For instance, you can’t go down to the local bomb shop to size up various bombs that you would like to purchase. As for the spoon and the fat person, the flaw in the argument is that everyone uses spoons; the fact that someone is abusing the spoon does not cost another innocent person their life, typically. Why we blame the guns is that:
1. their sole purpose is to kill-guns do not have multiple functions. You can’t claim that you want to live in a peaceful society but be unwilling to implement some common sense gun laws.
2. it is easier to kill with guns; if gangbangers had to go around stabbing people, there would be less killing. It’s easy to do a drive by shooting or a mass shooting when you have a gun that makes killing more efficient and impersonal. Even soldiers that are trained to kill walk away with a heavy conscience when they take another life. For citizens that don’t have much of a conscience or don’t have proper training to have guns is a recipe for an incident and there have been many. Whether it’s the 2 year old that gets shot or the 8 year old that kills a neighbor, somehow guns always seem to fall into the wrong hands (which hands are the right ones?)
Another friend on FB posted something to the effect that there is more violence (not specific to guns)per square mile in England, where guns are banned, than in the United States. Again, a heavily flawed argument in that the United States is 5 times the size of England and therefore, on average, their population has less square mileage between them. The flawed argument is like saying that NYC has more homeless people per square than the state of New York. While it may be true, it is only because the comparison is being made between 2 unequivocal dimensions of land. And still, the fact remains that they have far fewer gun-related deaths.
One-upmanship is a losing battle. A politician said: the only way to fight a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy with a bigger gun. Have we not learned from past arms races? It seems that people cannot empathize unless they are personally affected, like the various senators’ opinions on gay marriage–all but one changing their mind simply because the matter hit home with their own child being homosexual. People have no empathy and that’s a real big problem in the face of gun control.
The white man conquered the world by way of guns. White people, being a worldwide minority, managed to invade, divide and conquer every continent by use of guns. With guns they were able to colonize and reconstitute societies, changing their language, culture and religious beliefs. That is how much power guns have and power is the real reason people want to have the right to own them. It’s not about the government taking over because, truth be told, that’s not likely in this country due to the freedoms that we do exercise. Additionally, there are other ways to ‘overthrow the leader’, some of which are, ideally, nonviolent. It’s about feeling superior or feeling like you have the upper hand.
A friend that is for gun control says, “do you want someone mentally ill to have a gun?!” Thing about that is that the ‘mentally ill’ are not all crazed lunatics. How about background checks for domestic violence? Domestic violence usually escalates until the shit hits the fan and either the victim becomes the victor or the victim becomes the deceased. It’s not all about the most obvious groups to deny access to guns because, as we see time and again, guns are getting into the hands of children and ending up on the streets illegally. And let me say that just because there are ways to get around laws does not mean that they should not be made. The fact of the matter is that you will never be able to get rid of all guns so the fear that the gun-toters have is lent some credence; that, should they give up their guns, they leave themselves vulnerable to attack. At the same time, most of the people that want their guns so badly live in low-crime areas.
There needs to be a scale of measure- a standard, a guide, a deterrent. Common sense gun control includes not having semiautomatic guns. As for rifles…well, I’m not a hunter and am not certain how hunting qualifies as a sport, but unless you have a hunting license, you damn sure don’t need a rifle. When it’s all said and done, it always boils down to COMMON SENSE, leaving no reason not to enforce gun control