No, they do not. If a person wants to murder, there are various means of accomplishing this. Weapons can be acquired through illegal means, for example. By enforcing gun control, you’re only preventing the good guys from protecting themselves, thus making it easier for a person to commit murder. Now, there may be a place for a background check before purchasing, but I do not think the use of weapons to murder somebody should prevent a person from protecting their family.
10 Responses to Guns Must Be Stopped!
Justin July 29, 2012
With the recent shooting in Aurora, I highly doubt he would have been able to hurt and kill so many people with a knife. It’s too easy to acquire firearms in America.
Gio July 29, 2012
I guarantee 100% that if we completely banned firearms before it happened he still would have killed so many people. Making firearms illegal doesn’t stop bad people from getting them – even if they get them legally as is.
Justin July 30, 2012
This is avoiding my point. I said he wouldn’t have done the same with a knife and that it’s too easy to get guns… Especially unnecessary ones. Let me ask you, do you think it’s okay to get explosives such as grenades to “defend” yourself? There needs to be more regulation. Especially with the high death toll in America compared to almost every other country in the world.
Gio July 30, 2012
“Let me ask you, do you think it’s okay to get explosives such as grenades to “defend” yourself? ”
No, but grenades are different from guns because grenades can and do cause a massive amount of damage to people and property (including the thrower) which is rarely intended and almost never justified.
“There needs to be more regulation.”
No there doesn’t. All more regulation will do is make the already obese state even larger and either have a negligible effect on or increase in crime.
“Especially with the high death toll in America compared to almost every other country in the world.”
No unbiased source? No credibility.
Robert July 30, 2012
If this was a stabbing instead of a shooting, would you say that he wouldn’t have been able to hurt and kill so many people if he only had a spoon? Your argument can’t work unless there’s a reason to draw the line at guns instead of somewhere else.
Gil Sanders July 30, 2012
Justin,
How is a difference in degree at all relevant to the kind of act? The very fact that a gun and a knife can potentially be used for murder should itself be a reason for making them illegal, according to your arguments. To draw the line on the degree of deaths it could cause is simply arbitrary. Regardless of the degree, you must always return to the intrinsic moral nature of the act in order to arrive at some principle for making it illegal. Evil is always going to find a way to put someone to death, that’s a plain truism. It’s no more effective than making drugs illegal, at least against certain kinds of people. The only persons you’re truly preventing from acquiring weapons are the law-abiding citizens of this country. Contrary to the presumption here, if such persons could legally acquire such weapons, it could actually prevent further murders like Aurora. Instead, it seems you’re proposing we just sit around like ducks, waiting to be targeted. If we had more law-abiding citizens with arms, that would be a good deterrent for criminals or could at least help to reduce the degree. However, that’s merely a consequential consideration as the right to bear arms is a natural right, regardless of your arguments from degree.
Robert July 30, 2012
Whoa, hold on there hoss! I was agreeing with you here, my point was that Justin’s degree argument doesn’t work, at least not without a further argument that degree matters. Maybe there is such an argument, or maybe there isn’t, but it’s up to him to try to provide one. I would however like to comment on this:
Contrary to the presumption here, if such persons could legally acquire such weapons, it could actually prevent further murders like Aurora.
That’s not true, because the Aurora shooter did in fact acquire his weapons legally. If his victims had wanted to purchase weapons in order to protect themselves or to stop events like these from happening, they very well could have, just as he purchased them. Probably not everyone, due to the high prices of such things, but at least a few were able to arm themselves. They chose not to.
If we had more law-abiding citizens with arms, that would be a good deterrent for criminals or could at least help to reduce the degree.
Maybe, but I don’t think so. Bank robberies still seem to happen pretty often despite the presence of armed security guards.
Gil Sanders July 30, 2012
My bad, I realized and edited that before you made the comment
Just added you out of instinct, I suppose!
That’s not true, because the Aurora shooter did in fact acquire his weapons legally.
Note the conditional “If” statements, as well as the “could” qualifier. Nothing I said entails that it is “necessarily true it will prevent further murders like Aurora” because I only said that it potentially could. And of course, I realize some criminals could acquire weapons through legal means, just as I can acquire a knife through legal means, but that doesn’t mean their particular immoral use is legal. Not everyone will carry a knife either, but it’s obvious that if someone had a gun at that event, many deaths could have been prevented.
Maybe, but I don’t think so. Bank robberies still seem to happen pretty often despite the presence of armed security guards.
I only said it “reduced” the crimes, not that it eliminated such crimes.
Lerrrr August 3, 2012
I’ve never been a big fan of the whole “by enforcing gun control you only stop the good guys having guns” argument. Seems like you could effectively extend that to just about every law in existence; yeah, of course only the “bad guys” are ever going to break any of the laws…..well I guess what’s the point in having laws then?
That being said, while I agree with you Justin that the US needs to do something to combat this sort of thing, I doubt very much if simply reducing the number of guns (or even making them slightly harder to get) will solve the problem. Personally I think the matter goes far deeper than that. There would need to be a significant culture shift; right now, guns are seen (by many over that way) as an acceptable part of every day life. It’s not completely bizarre to hear somebody talk about their requirement to own a gun in their own home. If you travelled to most of the rest of the western world, people would give you a really strange look and ask you “what the heck dude? Why do you need a gun?!”. They wouldn’t ask that because there is so much less crime or something, just because in those places guns are not a cultural norm. Do they care less about the protection of their family? Nope, no figures I’ve seen suggest there is radically more crime in Europe/Scandinavia for example (in fact in some cases you see the opposite is the case). So the difference is not in the *actual* threat posed, as opposed to the *perceived threat*.
I don’t think anybody would suggest inanimate objects kill people on their own – but are you really telling me you can’t see a difference in danger level posed by a laptop as opposed to an automatic rifle? Do you not believe there is such a thing as a potentially dangerous object? There’s nothing about that phrase that implies the object will kill of its own accord I don’t think. In fact I’m sure most who are in favour of the ownership of some guns are also against the ownership of some either objects which by themselves are inanimate but are nevertheless extremely dangerous. If I wanted to purchase a grenade for private defense as Justin suggested, and attempted to justify it by saying “grenades are inanimate objects. Grenades don’t commit crimes”. Would you hand me my grenade? I hope not!!
Gil Sanders August 4, 2012
Seems like you could effectively extend that to just about every law in existence
No, my statement is logically limited to inanimate objects or any sort of neutral possession. It may not work for every law in existence, but it was not meant to be.
I don’t think anybody would suggest inanimate objects kill people on their own – but are you really telling me you can’t see a difference in danger level posed by a laptop as opposed to an automatic rifle
That depends. What if you hacked into the U.S Nuclear System?
Do you not believe there is such a thing as a potentially dangerous object?
I agree, but that potential is only actualized by something in act. In this case, that potency would primarily depend on the human.
If I wanted to purchase a grenade for private defense as Justin suggested
For self-defense, a grenade is hardly necessary or even justified from the right to bear arms. It’s an excessive use of force that could harm innocent people in the process. Only in perhaps extreme circumstances could it be truly justified, such as war or in a lawless land where terrorists attack in groups.