Why I hate the "Guns don't kill people" argument

Quite a common argument I hear is the "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." argument.

Let's all be honest here. Guns are weapons designed to kill people. Just like a sword or a missile. Its purpose is to kill. Now, gun owners argue (the ones i've talked to) that if you leave a gun, say, on a park bench, it will just sit there, not doing anything.

But that doesn't take into account human nature. If a psycho walks by and sees the gun, he may pick it up and shoot someone. A gun isn't just goin to sit there

A gun is a weapon, with the sole purpose of violence.

 

The truth is that where there are more guns there is a higher homicide rate - the research is in

 

http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/crime-vs-gun-ownership

 

Do baseball bats kill people? Do cars kill people? What about knives? Chainsaws? Piano wire?
Should we ban rat poison? Think of how many children could die if a psycopath put it in the school cafeteria food!

Not necessarily kill, but we can agree at least to harm. So let's discuss this. Harming is not necessarily a bad thing. Harming can be used to protect, the potential to harm can be used as a deterrent, preventing crime or protecting life.

And there are many small towns where you can leave it on a park bench. The next day you are likely to find it in the lost-and-found at the sheriff's office.
What has our country come to where we are surrounded in public by adults who cannot be trusted with a gun? Was it not progressives who assured us all this immigration would not increase the crime rate?

(the USA is a little different, for other reasons I will not go into here)

 

And this is why so many Americans want guns - for the purpose of potentially killing someone.

Face it, there is no other reason to want a gun. Self defense? Fine -but that means you are happy to kill someone in order to remain safe, which means you still want that gun for the purpose of possibly taking a life.

You can keep a baseball bat beside your bed. You can try closing and locking your doors and windows at night. You can secure your house by buying an alarm system. You do NOT need a gun.

 

And yet the vast majority of gun owners do not. Most of the people who use a gun to commit murder do not legally own the gun.

Yes, I do not understand why Liberals have such a problem with such a concept.
Gun owners do not want to take a criminal's life, they just want the potential to be able to do so, to protect their own life, including when they are trying to protect their property. Again, I emphasise it does not have to kill, it could simply be used to disable the attacker. But of course, there is always risk when you are shooting someone that is running towards you.

That's a funny one. What if the criminals manage to disconnect the alarm? How long will it take for the police to arrive? What if there are riots elsewhere and the police are busy? What if there is a natural disaster and the road washed out? Looters often take advantage of natural disasters.

What if the police do not even respond?
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/07/1...s-like-burglary-grand-theft-and-other-crimes/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/n...-in-its-police-force.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

What a good is "designed" to do shouldn't matter at all. What matters is how one uses it.

Condoms are designed to allow couples to commit a mortal sin in the eyes of the Catholic church, yet would one be a bad Catholic if he bought condoms to fill with water and throw around? Of course not. What matters is what you actually use the good for, not what it's "designed" to do, whatever that means.

The slogan of the "people kill people, not guns" argument is pretty weak I agree, but it has an instructive message behind it: outlaw the act, not the means. Nobody wants to outlaw cars because of vehicular homicide. No(reasonable)body wants to outlaw alcohol because of the assaults it causes. You should outlaw the act of killing, not the instrument used to do it, because then you'd be outlawing the perfectly legitimate uses of firearms: collection, hunting, general interest, whatever. I for one would buy guns for sure if my country allowed it, but over here you have to go through a permit process obviously designed to make it as difficult as possible to own one. Please don't let this happen to your country too.

If I leave a pen and piece of paper on a park bench some psycho might come by and stab some kid's jugular with the pen. Then again, someone might walk by and write the next Illiad. Is your solution to ban pens and paper as a result (think of implications for analogy)? If it is then we disagree and there's probably nothing I can say to reconcile these differences.

Blatantly untrue. Are you saying that my grandfather, who showed me at a young age how to shoot cans, was a violent man? What about my dad who owns a gun for sentimental value? What about the scores of people who collect them for personal pleasure? The people who go hunting? Are all these people violent lawbreakers? If so, then ban guns right away. If not, then any law which makes gun ownership illegal is unjust.

 

I have designed 3 guns. None of them designed to kill people.

 

I disagree with this. I don't want to kill people. My Guns were bought for target shooting and hunting. Hell usually they are locked up so tight that I would need to use a bat or kitchen knife to defend my home.

The fact here is the US has some big problems:
We can send Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan... money to defend themselves and billions upon billions patrolling and securing the world with borrowed money but we can not properly defend our schools.
Companies give billions in bonuses every year but they can not secure the malls they have stores in or or malls they own.
Hollywood makes billions in profit promoting violence and they can not properly secure movie theaters that make them money.
We can send billions in health care aid around the world while we close mental health facilities in the US?
We can help subsidize medication in third world countries while mentally ill people in the US go untreated because they cant get the meds.

Gun violence is not the problem it is a symptom of a country and people that do not have their priorities straight.
Murder in most unarmed societies is higher than armed societies.

 

Guns don't kill people, people do, but the gun helps.

Guns don't kill people, it's just the noise they make...

 

The psycho with a gun sort of demands that the rest of us must have a gun to defend against him.

 

Our sick society is what is killing people.

 

The design is meaningless when 0.00046% are used for such purposes.

However many gun owners will say "well I can pick a rock and all of a sudden it is a weapon".

This is true. However those guys do not use rocks over firearms because firearms are more effective tools.

I carry a firearm instead of a rock for the same reason.

 

which research say this?

 

I have had 3 different weapons, which I bought for target practice. It is very relaxing as you have to control your breathing and relax if you want to be accurate... so no, guns sole function is not violence, anymore than a knifes sole function is to inflict violence... unless you count slicing up mushrooms for my salad a violent act. A knife in my hand is a tool to carve wood, but in the hands of a psychopath, like the guy who injured 20+ people in a Chinese school the other day, it is a weapon.

How about baseball bats and hammers? Need I really go on?

Take firearms away people will then use bow and arrows, take those away people will use knives, take those away people will use bats and golf clubs... on... and on... and on... until you have taken every deadly tool away, then people will use their bare hands to kill.

IMO the problem is guns falling into the wrong hands. Where I do severely criticize gun owners is in not appropriately securing their firearms. How many deadly shootings could have been avoided if the perp could not steal a friend or family members firearm? How many die by the hand of a gang banger using a gun he lifted during a home invasion? Another gripe I have is the 30 round magazines... this is excessive. How about a maximum of 5 round magazines for long rifles? It would make it much harder to kill so many when you have to reload every 5 shots.

And you hunters who say you hunt with your AR-15, do you really need a 30 round clip to kill a deer? Are you really that poor of a shot? Personally I would use a standard single shot bolt action 30-06

 

Its quite interesting to note that in the US, which has one of the highest gun to people ratio, that the number of gun related killings is the highest of any of the main "modern" countries, only countries that have a conflict have a higher death rate, while as the countries with the strictest gun control have the lowest gun related deaths .. can no one see the relationship here?

 

Outlander,
You are attempting to blame one for the actions of another. That is like saying, "The Devil made me do it" which does not hold up to scrutiny. Are you really telling me that a gun encourages a person to want to kill another with said gun? If that is the case, I grew up on a farm and my father and uncles had plenty of guns within my reach. Did I ever have a thought of harming another with one of the guns? No I did not. What you are talking about is holding one person responsible for the actions of another, which is not possible. Why blame the actions of others on people who have nothing to do with their mental state or mens rea? Unless you can prove that all gun owners brainwashed those who use guns to murder others, you do not have an argument. That is like saying, "Because there are narcotics available, you will go out and sell some but you are not at fault for selling said narcotics. Your argument does not make any sense.

Bowerbird,
read this. it is from a Liberal/Progressive philanthropic organization. Even they say that blaming gun ownership for violent crimes is not founded or based in any facts.

The full essay: http://factcheck.org/2008/03/violent-crimes-and-handgun-ownership/

 

Here is something that all should read.

What, a Muslim advocating gun ownership? Not at all, I am simply presenting facts and counter arguments to the "gun control/ gun banning lobby.
If a person is not committing any problems with their guns, why should other attempt to stand in the way of the same owning guns? There is not actual legitimate call for the elimination of guns, there is only fallacious grand standing.
Gun ownership is actually a deterrent to criminal activities.

 

I post this because if there was a faculty member in the school with a legal carrying license, then Mr. Adam Lanza would not have been able to execute as many children and adults as he did. This is a serious issue that needs to be discussed. I just hope that Connecticut politicians have the testicular fortitude to be men and soberly examine all options before taking the route of so many other cowards in this society. If carrying persons can deter mass murders from taking place, then I say "Go with that option".

 

i am sick of such a short sighted argument. Baseball bat are you serious. I am recovering from a stroke how the hell am i suppose to be able effectively use a bat? or also how will say an elderly man suppose to fight of a young buff man. the Gun is the equalizer without it cripples elderly and the weak are pretty defenseless. well ok if you ar in good condition physically use can it for home defense but what about carry on the street to keep you from getting mugged raped beaten etc.

 

and isnt it ironic all these mass sootings happen in "gun free" zones.

 

Better than having teachers walk around with pistols. It's hard enough keeping the tests answers away from students. It's just a bad idea, and would do more harm than good.

 

Guns don't have 'human nature' they are inanimate objects. That IS really the point here...blaming the gun is ignoring the root of the problem. Guns don't make anyone more or less violent. They may just be violent rotten bastards. The gun is a TOOL that makes it easier to gain power over another individual.

The problem with going after guns, is the old argument (denigrated by most liberals) that only the law abiding are going to give up their guns. Those violent rotten bastards will be well-armed which gives THEM all the power.

Violent rotten bastards are EVIL....it exists in this world and no matter how you throw tantrums and stomp your feet you will never eradicate it. The BEST and MOST RESPONSIBLE thing you can do for you and your loved ones is to be prepared to DEFEND yourself. With a GUN. Buy it, learn how to use it, observe safety, practice.

 

When will it get to the point when we find ourselves in our own Cold War? Neighbor vs. Neighbor in a race to ser who gets the most guns.

 

Where I live most of my neighbors are armed. We all own our land and respect each others rights. The guns are not for turning on your neighbors or anyone else. They are for hunting and protection. No one wants to have to shoot another human being. This is the traditional moral code most everyone understands.

In areas (mostly liberal bastions) in the 'hoods' of America, moral relativity is the 'norm.' Stretching the boundaries with 'progressive' values to the point where the very color you wear could get you killed by someone with a different set of morals and values.

Knives, guns, brass knuckles it really doesn't matter to them. The REAL problem is a lack of basic shared morals and values. They were RAISED this way and are generations deep. Instead of concentrating on a gun-type you should be seriously considering why that society (and others) are churning out a bunch of juvenile Psychos.