Weird Gun Control Arguments

A pretty common line of argumentation from folks who believe that the solution to gun violence is making guns more readily available goes like, “If someone were to die from [insert typically non-lethal item], then would you be favor in limiting access to [typically non-lethal item?]”

Cars kill people all of the time, do you want to ban cars?

Someone could be bludgeoned to death with a can of soup, do you want to ban soup?

What if someone were to drown to death in a tub of jello? Would you want to restrict access to jello?

It’s madlibs for gun nuts.

Anyhow, the reason this is a totally stupid argument is that things like cars, cans of soup, and jello have a whole slew of purposes other than killing people.

The entire point of a gun is that it allows a person to kill another person with the least amount of effort and emotional investment. So when someone like Bob Costas says that someone might still be alive if their killer didn’t have a gun, that’s a perfectly valid thing to say. Obviously people can kill each other without guns, but it’s a lot more difficult and also a lot more personal.

Oh, and it’s also completely and totally weird that people are calling for Costas to be fired. Apparently the right to free speech does not apply in cases of blasphemy a.k.a. gun control advocacy.

Advertisements

2 comments

  1. Nico Tower

    Jared, I agree with the essence of your statement. Yet, I think that firing a gun is more personal and emotional than you would think. Have you ever shot a gun? Perhaps gone to a firing range? It is a very emotional action. You would think that you have can keep some emotional “distance” between yourself and a target- but it is not really like that at all. Its affect is profoundly personal. I can’t even imagine using one on a human. I think the result would be devastating for both parties.

    I guess what I’m saying is: fundamentally, guns are weapons. Tools for killing and hurting. And any time you kill a human, or even hurt a human, it will be personal and emotional. Even the robotically-super-trained-killing-machine-macho-guys in Seal Team Six, or Delta Squad, or Force Recon feel killing. Maybe not in the same ways as us normal folk, and maybe it dissipates over time, but I believe it is always there, nagging. Human reaction to killing will always be felt, in one way or another. Maybe this is nit-picky and pointless, as it is not hugely central to your argument. If so, I apologize.

    All in all, I do agree with you. What you argued against is definitely a foolish mantra for the proliferation of guns. That being said, I do think there is truth hiding behind the stupidity- A car can definitely kill people, if used irresponsibly. A gun can also kill someone, if used irresponsibly. (I suppose this also has to do with the question, “what is the ‘proper’, ‘responsible’ use for guns and other weapons?”) Granted-not the same. But perhaps irresponsible use, sales and training with regards to guns is part of, if not most of, the problem? After all, as with any weapon, guns don’t kill people- people kill people. No gun ever went off without some form of human intervention. Anyway. Hope this leads to some pleasant discussion.

    Hope all is well with you.

    Peace and love,

    Nico

    • JaredHillaryRuark

      Hey, dude. Thanks for the reply.

      Right now I have to choose between a timely response and an adequate response (school, ugh). So I’ll get to this sometime relatively soon, like in the grand scheme of your entire life.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s