Quote:
Originally Posted by arock10
Guns aren't addictive substances. Totally different
|
Hmm, I'm not sure what your argument is. Are you implying that drugs are addictive and so that is why people will find a way to get it no matter what? I would agree with that. But isn't it true that people greatly value freedom and security from others who intend them harm. Those are forces that are very strong drives as well and a reason why people will go to great lengths to get guns.
If the goal is to stop violent crimes from happening, I don't think banning guns is the solution.
The thought many people have is that if there are less guns there will be less gun related crimes. That leads people to think "hey, let's ban guns".
There are 2 problems with this.
1) Gun bans will not prevent criminals from getting guns. Disarming lawful citizens prevents them from protecting themselves. The risk to a criminal is now decreased and disarmed citizens are much easier prey. As a result this will only increase crime. A gun ban will widen the gap disparity between criminals and citizens ability to protect themselves (in favor of the criminals).
2) If the concentration of guns determines the likelihood of violent crimes then wouldn't a gun show be the most likely place for a massacre, not schools? The fact is that there is less crime in areas of high gun ownership.
In the presence of well armed citizens, the probability of pulling off a successful crime is much less and the risk of bodily harm to a criminal is much greater.
In order to rationalize a gun ban, it must first be proven that decreasing guns per capita will reduce crime and that implementing a gun ban will indeed reduce the amount of criminals with guns. I think both of those assumptions are false but I am open to changing my mind should a rational argument and supporting evidence be presented.