Quote:
|
It should be clear that no physical object is in itself aggressive; any object, whether it be a gun, a knife, or a stick, can be used for aggression, for defense, or for numerous other purposes unconnected with crime. It makes no more sense to outlaw or restrict the purchase and ownership of guns than it does to outlaw the possession of knives, clubs, hatpins, or stones. And how are all of these objects to be outlawed, and if outlawed, how is the prohibition to be enforced? Instead of pursuing innocent people carrying or possessing various objects, then, the law should be concerned with combatting and apprehending real criminals.
|
Guns have one use. To kill. All those other things have uses beyond being used as a weapon. So it makes much more sense to limit guns and not the other objects.
The Good Samaritan argument is not thought through as Daradon already pointed out. I understand the ideal world the author has set up in his brain wear a women being mugged is immediately saved by five men with handguns. However it wouldn't work that way. A person try intercede in a situation like that is more likely to cause the shooting of an innocent than anything. It is just so difficult to act correctly and rationally in situations like that. That is why people are trained to be experts in handling such situations. The experts (the police) should have guns. Not random people on the street.