“Yes, people have a right to life and gun control is a plausible means of preserving innocent life but when put to the test it failed to live up to it’s promise. It’s time to end the experiments. — Joe Huffman
“Yes, people have a right to life and gun control is a plausible means of preserving innocent life but when put to the test it failed to live up to it’s promise. It’s time to end the experiments. — Joe Huffman
I’ve though about this quite a bit, and I can’t see how “gun control” is a plausible means of preserving innocent life. I like to do thought experiments where I start with the disarmer’s premise, and honestly the only scenario I can image where I would agree with their position is that when two adversaries who are inclined to violence confront each other, a weapon (not just a gun, mind you) carried by one or both of them greatly increases the chance that one of them will die. That sounds horrible until one considers that this may be a disincentive to escalate, or that one party did not wish to initiate violence.
I suspect that “gun control” is simply a social engineer’s euphemism for disarmament of anyone not part of the officially-sanctioned social engineer’s club (government), so before any of us can have a useful discussion about it, someone needs to lay out a working definition which doesn’t suddenly change for the sake of convenience. Fixed definitions will give both sides of the argument a fixed point at which actual scientific arguments may be directed. Like socialism, “gun control” is not only undesirable, it’s simply impossible.