| Baalzamon said: You should think about the logic you are using once. Certain people break laws with guns, therefore we should make guns illegal to at least try to prevent this from happening. |
The reason I would ban guns isn't because "people use them to break laws." People use their fists to break laws, too, and you can't ban those.
I would ban guns because I see them as weapons of mass destruction. Or weapons of mass killing. A single person with a simple gun can use that gun to kill many more than one person. A gun is a weapon that gives a single person the ability to easily kill many. In this way, from my perspective it is no different in principal from a nuclear bomb.
A baseball bat does not truly give the wielder an advantage -- if you can run faster than them, you will be safe. If you can dodge a single swing and then punch them in the face, you will be fine. You cannot run from or dodge a bullet.
Likewise, cars may be flying metal death traps, but they are not truly weapons. You can drive your car into another car, and perhaps kill people in that car, but your own car will probably be wrecked after one such attack, and you yourself would be unlikely to be unharmed.
Notice that those other instruments also have multiple purposes: bats are used to play games, cars are used to transport people. Guns serve a single purpose and a single purpose only: killing. You don't shoot at something you aren't willing to kill. Guns are weapons of mass killing. It is hypocritical to support individuals' rights to carry guns but deny countries the rights to nuclear armaments. The arguments used supporting both are the same in principal. No country should have nuclear arms, and no civilian should carry a gun.
