I know guns don't kill people. Bullets do but, it takes a gun to fire the bullet and it only requires a something to trigger the trigger it doesn't have to be a person.
Update:OmaDasala You make a interesting point. So from what you have stated could we apply the same logic to drugs? If you try to control something by restricting it it does no good. Why should we have the right to arm but try to limit others like N. Korea or Iran? Don't they have the right to protect themselves? I just find a lot of hypocrisy on both sides of the issue. It seems like it bottom line is things are OK if I want to do them. If somebody else wants it and I don't it should be an issue. I support the right to bear arms but should I have the right to strap a cannon or 50mm to the bed of my truck? It is like the right to free speech. You don't cry fire when there is none. Where do we draw the line?
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
I'm as tired of that one as I am of the argument that we can't outlaw assault weapons because it won't stop crime. So should we do away with all laws, since people always break them?
Rapists don't stop raping because there are laws against it, thieves don't stop stealing, and murderers won't stop killing their wives, children and employers.
The difference is how many will be killed with guns that can fire faster than people can run way and how long you can fire before you have to stop and reload and give people a chance to run.
If a gun where to go off magically it is an accident, not a "killing" or "murder". It takes a person to commit a murder. Guns have no mind set and if treated properly (follow the 4 rules) then no one will ever get hurt. That is the things about the 4 rules, you have to be breaking them all at the same time for someone to get hurt.
what if the gun is sitting alone by itself? on a counter or shelf? not moving just sitting still, laying even, no one touching it, and it doesn't go off? guess what it didn't kill someone. when someone holds the firearm, there is a 95% chance they will use it to kill or protect themselves but anymore it is kill. So in all technicality guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people, and yes I see your point of view, someone could set up a contraption and have a gun involved that will be pulled by a heavy string on the trigger or something and kill whoever walks in the door way tripping that string of wire or something, but anymore it is people wielding firearms who kill people.
Requires what something to trigger the trigger? A rock? A space alien? A blade
of grass? A dog with long fingers? Son of Sam oh he was a person.
If requires a person behind the gun to fire the gun so "guns do not kill people".
People who have a gun and fire that gun kill people. The gun is the object
a person concisely decided to fire that killed another person.
Same can be said of a knife. "A knife does not kill people". People who have a
knife that stab a person or cut their throat can kill that person.
How about a hammer? A hammer does not kill people. People............
You see where I am going with this???????
I do. It's one of those things people say when they don't have anything actually useful to say.
Of course guns don't DECIDE to kill... it's people. But some things are sufficiently dangerous that we keep them away from people who would use them to do harm.
Banning certain guns is no different than banning nuclear weapons. No one can possibly be in support of "no gun laws" and be against me acquiring and using a nuclear weapon to "protect" myself.
I get kind of tired of it too, but you have to admit that it's hard to fit the following on a bumper sticker:
All impartial statistical evidence conclusively shows that more gun control will have no effect on violence. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."
The National Institute of Justice found should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.
The ban on weapons enacted by the UK has greatly curbed gun violence itself, but not violence in general. After the gun ban, violent crime rates became much higher, and in 2009 the UK's violent crime rate was even higher than South Africa's.
In a study done by the University of Chicago, it was found that 700,000 police killed 330 innocent individuals, while approximately 250,000,000 private citizens only killed 30 innocent people. You are 11 times more likely to be wrongfully shot by a police officer than an armed citizen.
Criminologists are the experts who study crime, criminals and their motivation. They make a career on the collection and analysis of statistics surrounding crime. All of the criminologists who have ever changed their opinion on gun control have moved from a position supporting gun control to the side sceptical of it's effectiveness. The longer a criminologist remains in their career, and the more statistical evidence they see, the more likely they are to move away from gun control as a solution. Notable criminologists such as Dr. Gary Kleck and James Wright, who were strong advocates for gun control at the beginning of their careers, are now on record stating that what they have learned in their years of study is that gun control is NOT the answer. If you are so steadfast in your belief that you know more about the subject of gun control and it's effect on crime than the people who have made a career of studying the statistics, and *changed their opinions* based on the evidence they found, then I would posit that you are the problem here. Focusing on something that will not work distracts attention from valuable organisations that fight for effective solutions.
**Edit**
In response to your additional details:
Yes, I think the same logic could be applied towards drugs. Statistics on that subject show that our current policy of deterrent through harsh criminalisation is ineffective, expensive, and damaging; while other countries have found much greater success through focusing on treatment of the individuals. Treatment for chemical dependencies is a tried and true solution. I think the same should be done concerning gun violence - deterrent through treatment and healthcare reform. I also think that it might be a good idea to take steps to prevent the sensationalism of these crimes, so that a person committing them does not essentially gain fame through them.
We draw the line when a proposed law both,
A) infringes on the rights of an individual, and
B) has been statically proven ineffective.
Such a law does only harm, no good, and should be dismissed as such outright.
I'm pretty burnt out on all the bumper sticker logic.
Does anyone else ever get tired of our whole country being blamed when one person does something wrong? I know I do. No, kids, everything is *not* society's fault.
No I don't. But that could be because I'm not retarded.