If you are for more laws on guns, do you also want more laws for other things that are more harmful to society as well?

Asked by: weefishy
  • Many for more gun laws or for gun bans are not coherent or morally consistent in their arguments which they say are about "saving lives."

    A disturbing pattern I have noticed among those who want to either have more gun laws or want to ban guns entirely is the lack of coherency and moral consistency in their arguments.

    First of all, if you want to advocate a law, don't invoke something that has nothing to do with the law you're advocating and that the law you're advocating would not have prevented, such as Newtown. The killer murdered his mother and took her guns, thus expanded background checks would not have stopped this crime. Likewise with Las Vegas, the Jarad Miller was a felon and thus not allowed to own guns and probably got them via straw purchase through his wife, assuming they were not stolen. This to me is a sign of a poorly-conceived belief with no substantive backing whatsoever.

    Secondly, I find that nearly all of people who want more gun laws or outright gun bans do so in the name of "saving lives" and that "one is too many," however the same does not apply to other things such as alcohol. In spite of that drunken driving kills more people than are murdered with guns in the US each year, nobody is calling for more booze laws or prohibition. Likewise, those who want to cast a wider net on gun deaths include suicides and accidents, bringing the total of gun deaths to about 35,000 (most gun deaths being suicides), have nothing to say when it is pointed out that nearly 90,000 people die from alcohol abuse each year.

    Clearly the lack of moral consistency here shows that the argument these people are offering is indeed NOT about "saving lives," but it's rather about the guns, and it's driven by irrational emotionality largely due to tear-jerking television coverage.

    Even more so, most homicides are not stranger-on-stranger and do not involve more than one victim, but of course nearly all drunken driving deaths are stranger-on-stranger, which even further illustrates the lack of a reasoned argument from people who do not want to further restrict alcohol but want to do so with guns.

    Clearly, it makes no sense to demand more gun laws or gun bans for extremely rare incidents of random spree killing in light of that far more people randomly die on the streets due to someone's misuse of a common vice.

    SO, if you are one who wants more gun laws or gun bans, do you also call for the equivalent in the sale, possession, and distribution of alcoholic beverages as well such as background checks for each purchase, limiting the size of bottles one can buy, how many containers of alcohol one may buy at each purchase, when and how the alcohol may or may not be displayed in public, and of course, bringing back prohibition.

    This is what moral consistency looks like, so how many people are willing to put their alcohol away so that non-drinkers like me don't have to worry about being randomly run over on the street?

  • No responses have been submitted.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.