Originally Posted by Molitoth
I agree. I like them too... just saying, if they did not exist I truely believe that less people would be dead today. Belcher made a spur of the moment stupid decision. Had he not owned a gun, I'm guessing he would've beat her to a pulp, but she would've lived.
I do believe guns don't kill people; people do.... but also Whitlock makes some valid points.
Or he could have grabbed a kitchen knife and gone OJ on her too. Crazy sometimes can be hard to predict.
I agree that if guns didn't exist we'd probably have fewer dead people today...probably less than people think but likely fewer. The problem is that it's also true that if we didn't have cars we'd also have fewer dead people today.
No one needs a car, build out the public transportation some and people could get around without them. But personally I think that would suck, sometimes you want the freedom of running on your own schedule and personally I enjoy just driving at times.
The point I'm trying to bring up is that often we will apply harsh standards to things that we don't approve of, but then not apply those same standards to things that we do like. To be fair we have to apply the same standards to everything whether we like it or not.
If banning firearms is an appropriate response to preventing unnecessary firearm deaths then why is banning cars not an appropriate response to preventing unnecessary automobile deaths? I know people will say it's crazy to even think of banning cars, but is it really that different?