Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
You misunderstand the point of gun control. No one is claiming that reducing access to guns will reduce violence. What gun control advocates argue is that reducing access to guns will reduce the damage caused by that violence.
For example, access to a firearm is likely irrelevant to whether or not Mr. Whiteacre gets drunk, comes home, and takes out the frustrations of his unrealized hopes and dreams on Ms. Whiteacre. However, access to a firearm is likely relevant to whether or not Ms. Whiteacre wakes up in the morning with a black eye and a broken jaw or whether she doesn't wake up at all. Obviously, both options are abhorrent, but one is clearly preferable to the other.
|
Exactly. Kid loses his mind in Newtown and has access to weapons? A whole lot of people are dead. Kid loses his mind here in Pittsburgh, only has access to a knife, quite a few people are hurt, but not a single death.
Again, there are still drunk drivers who kill people. There are still people who don't use seatbelts and are seriously injured or killed in car accidents. But the number of injuries and fatalities are greatly reduced because of the laws in place.
Common sense gun control doesn't take away guns from good citizens, but if sale of weapons/ammo is more controlled, it might keep guns away from criminals and sociopaths, and it would likely result in a reduction of gun related deaths.
No one is saying you have to take away all guns. Just that it should be regulated more heavily than it currently is. The NRA wants open season on guns, as if they're completely harmless toys, not a weapon whose express purpose is to exert deadly force.