This is a repost, and I disagree with it. I think this is a bit of a masked-man fallacy. It’s this idea that because it takes a human to actually kill, the tool is irrelevant. I disagree.
A human can kill with a car, yes. It’s generally not intentional (and in fact when someone is killed with a car, it’s referred to with terms like, “accident” or “fatality” or “vehicular manslaughter” because it’s not how the car is supposed to be used).
A human can also kill with a lamp or a baseball bat. But none of these things are tools intended to be used for murder, and that is what a gun is. A gun is a tool that was conceived and designed to kill. It is a tool that over the years has been honed to kill more effectively. That’s it’s point.
Yes, humans would kill with or without guns — but damn, do guns make it so much easier.
A common rebuttal to any discussion about of gun control is motor vehicle accident deaths. We don’t blame the car, we blame the driver. Regardless of the object’s intent (the car is for transportation and the gun is shoot people, targets, game, and skeet), neither a car nor a gun can kill or maim without human touch.
And I agree. Comparing guns and cars is fair, after all they kill about the same number of Americans every year: 33,687 motor vehicle deaths and 31,672 firearm deaths in 2010 (the latest year for which complete data is available). The death rates per 100,000 are almost identical: 10.9 for motor vehicles and 10.3 for firearms.
So let’s legislate guns just like we legislate motor vehicles:
- Learners permit at age 15 and a formal test required for a license at 16. This kind of law would prevent deaths of young children who are…
View original post 819 more words