In
the wake of the Aurora mass shooting, the usual pattern is playing out
with respect to gun control. People such as Mayor Michael Bloomberg,
Piers Morgan, and Bill Moyers are beating the drum to restrict firearm
ownership, as others try to beat them back. One side says we'd be safer
if guns were rarer; the other says that more guns equal less crime.
One side says guns kill people, the other that people kill people.
Facts and feelings are bandied back and forth (although one side
specializes in the facts and the other in the feelings), but in all the
commentary, some of which is very good, one point is universally missed.
For the sake of argument, let's accept the supposition that outlawing firearms would save lives. Does it logically follow from this that guns should be restricted or banned?
Well, it would certainly save lives and countless injuries if people didn't engage in mountain-climbing, hang-gliding, motorcycle-racing, trampolining, big-wave surfing, cave-diving, heli-skiing, and a host of other dangerous activities. And, like guns, knives and baseball bats are common murder weapons. Does it logically follow that these items and activities should be banned?
For the sake of argument, let's accept the supposition that outlawing firearms would save lives. Does it logically follow from this that guns should be restricted or banned?
Well, it would certainly save lives and countless injuries if people didn't engage in mountain-climbing, hang-gliding, motorcycle-racing, trampolining, big-wave surfing, cave-diving, heli-skiing, and a host of other dangerous activities. And, like guns, knives and baseball bats are common murder weapons. Does it logically follow that these items and activities should be banned?
No comments:
Post a Comment