If I'm writing a report with a pen and I make a mistake is that the pen's fault? No it's not but it makes it a lot easier to make a mistake with a pen in my hand right? So we should outlaw pens so people don't make writing mistakes on papers. Problem solved. This sounds incredibly stupid right? This is what anti gun people sound like when saying guns kill people
The Australian Government banned guns in 1996 and they were happy to see a significant decline in gun murders. However they also saw an increase in knife murders. Actually the graphs of the two rates are almost exact mirror opposite of each other.
See the graph: http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide/weapon.html
In reality the Australians didn't actually see a significant change in overall murder rates when they banned guns.
See graph: http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html
This seems to suggest that murder rates is not dependent on any kind of availability to weapons. People murder with or without guns, so it must not be the guns. Therefore I believe it is people that kill people, not the arbitrary instrument they just so happen to choose to use.
It is true that people choose to use a gun in their endevour to murder someone. So does that mean guns kill people? I saw a cop the other day, he had a gun, but the gun did not hop out of the holster and start to kill people randomly. People have died because they have been strangled by shoe laces or suffocated with a pillow. By the same logic people are applying the the inanimate objects we call guns then too the inanimate objects we call shoe laces and pillows must also be killers and banned from society.
So the title "killer" is not earned by gun or shoe laces, rather the people holding holding them earn the title.
Think of it this way. The firearm is nothing more than an inanimate object. It has no evil in it. It has no good in it. It simply is. In order for something to kill another thing, it must have a need or want to do so. A firearm can have neither. Thus, the firearm needs an outside source to provide these criteria.
Also, a firearm is nothing more than a tool. Let's say there is a wrench. A wrench can be used for intended purpose, or it can be used as a deadly weapon. Now let's say you kill someone with the wrench. You will be charged with the exact same crime as you would if you used a firearm. Why? Because in the end, it was you who killed the person, not the item you used.
Holds the gun, people. Can guns fire themselves, no. Do people have the guts to kill others, yes. Do we have the ability to pull the trigger, yes. Do we hurt people, yes all the time. Do we do stuff that we regret, all the time. But we can control our choices.
Guns do not kill people, People kill people! Yes having a gun makes it easier to kill people but banning guns is not the way to prevent this. Criminals will find another way to kill people and then the good people will not have a gun to defend themselves. Have better background checks so prevent guns being in the wrong hands.
Think of it as a science experiment, the chemical reaction doesn't happen if you don't mix the two substances. Most mass shootings have some reasoning or explanation behind it. For instance, the recent Florida shooting, the student had been expelled from the school and supposedly had a mental disorder, therefore he had a reason. That reason didn't excuse him from shooting up the school. Guns require someone to pull the trigger, they don't normally go off on their own, so it is not right to blame guns for these deadly massacres.
Recognize those words? You should, because they were the hot button issue before the discovery of gunpowder. Sure they take long and unless it was a long ranged weapon, you'd have to be at close quarters to use some of them. But if you were to take all the times people have died at the hands of those weapons for over millions of years. It outweighs the many deaths from weapons that have only been around for a millennia. Just because a gun has the capacity to kill more people, doesn't mean it kills the most people. It's always been the person. Be it a soldier, an officer or a complete psychopath on a rampage, to kill someone you have to be willing to go above and beyond basic moralities to kill one, let alone hundreds and thousands. If you were to ban guns, people would just purchase them illegally. If you were some how able to physically take away every single Gun on earth. We'd just find another way to kill each other. But we won't learn until we are reduced back to the stone age and killing each other with our bare hands.
Yes guns do kill people but what good is banning it, the truth is people kill everyday and the majority comes from knives and bludgeons. So what are we going to do, ban those knives and baseball bats too? If guns did not exist we would simple find anotherway to kill.
Behind the trigger of a gun as a person. So also behind the wheel of a car is a person. How many people die at the hands of cars on a daily basis? Are we willing to give up our cars? If a person has the want to kill another person, they will find a way. Guns aren't the problem. It's our society.
Have had my loaded 357 Mag in the drawer for several years and it hasn't killed anyone or anything. Pretty sure it won't unless someone or something with a hand picks it up and pulls the trigger. More people are killed in auto crashes every year but you don't see a ten day waiting period on a new Buick? ...
Though you could argue that guns don't at all force people to fire them, and in a perfect world then everyone could exist freely owning guns with no adverse effects. However in the real world what they do present is the ability for anyone to kill anyone with a twitch of their finger. At the end of the day a gun is a tool used to kill people and the reason why the American police need to carry guns is because with their current stance on gun control unstable people can either buy a gun or have access to one through friends and relatives.
Gun-rights activists patronise their opponents for not living in the modern world but really it is them living in the wild west thinking that protection is better than prevention and the only way to stop gun violence is by arming the population. Therefore I would contend that although guns, as an object, do not kill people. However it is the arrogance and naïveté of gun-rights activists who want guns freely available as some sort of neo-western justice system which is killing people. It is their ignorance in maintaining their right to own a killing machine that is depriving innocent people of their right to life.
A gun and person together can shoot the gun at a person. Remove the person and the gun can only shoot by some kind of accident. Remove the gun and then another form of weapon with less efficiency has to be used. So both gun and person are needed to kill another person efficiently. It's this efficiency that kills people.
If I am driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs and crash into someone and kill them, it wasn't the drugs or the alcohol's fault, it was mine for driving. The original purpose of a firearm was to shoot a projectile at something and put a hole in it, doesn't matter what it is, why would you use a gun to defend yourself if "guns don't kill people'. And the people that argue that guns can't kill people without the person pulling the trigger obviously haven't heard of accidental discharges.
Try to transport yourself and three other people 20 miles without a vehicle. Try sending an email to a bunch of people without internet access. Can't do these things? You should be able to because vehicles don't transport people, people transport people, and the internet doesn't send emails, people send emails. So how come you can't? It's because a vehicle and the internet are what enable transporting people and sending emails, just like a gun enables large scale killing, and killing lots of people quickly without a gun wouldn't be easy for a person to do even though it's the person's decision whether or not to do it.
Strictly speaking, and almost certainly agree by everyone, a gun is a weapon and as such it is designed for and used to inflict harm and physical damage, or at the very minimum threaten to do so. When a gun is designed and manufactured, it is created with this intent in mind. Sure, you can try to make an argument that you can use other things to kill, but most of those things (cars/pens/shoelaces/etc) are ultimately designed with another purpose in mind. Not so with a gun - when it is used properly and with purpose, it will damage, injure or kill something or someone, which is what is is designed to do.
The statistics for homicide in the US support this: in 2016 over 70% of murders and non-negligent manslaughter cases were carried out using a firearm. (https://www.Statista.Com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/). The main reason for this of course is they are fulfilling the purpose that they are designed for: efficient killing.
Guns kill people, and in the US they kill a lot of people.
The pen/car/shoelace metaphor is illogical, because those do things other than killing. Guns are used for: 1. Killing 2. Hunting (killing animals) 3. Target Practice (practicing killing).
It’s ok to say “I like guns and can be trusted” but that logic also means we should legalize all drugs and abortion, which is typically something most gun advocates would recoil from. The message must stay consistent. Either things are bad, or people are.