Should there be more restrictions on the current process of purchasing a gun?
Weapons of any sort are inanimate objects that require human agency, they are neither a source or cause of violence, nor are they necessary for violence to be carried out. The notion of "if guns weren't there to begin with" is completely irrelevant because guns and all weapons are already "there" and aren't going anywhere regardless of legality. An individual who truly wishes to use a firearm or any weapon to commit violence is going to acquire said weapon and attempt said violence regardless of difficulty and obstacles in doing so. To prevent this with certainty requires a level of such complete control over individuals lives and actions that leads this entire debate into "reductio ad absurdum". Even stronger arguments and actions in reducing the availability or increasing difficulty in acquiring firearms are rapidly disintegrating due to technological advancements that allow the production and manufacture of firearms by individuals to be easier than ever before, again regardless of legality. The "option" in the paragraph this is responding to is the option to commit violence or not. This is not an option that can be removed or neutralized. And if one who chooses that option wishes to include the use of a gun, there is no where on Earth under any law or safeguard that can prevent this from occurring with any level of certainty whatsoever. And since this argument in any sense of law only affects those who *never* commit unjustified violence (sudden criminality is no different here than planned or persistent criminality)and only use guns for peaceable purposes or in defensive violence, this position fails even further. Unless it is being suggested that the person committing unjustified violence with a gun cares that they aren't supposed to have the gun or is in any way concerned with the legality of the object they are committing a crime with
Be the first to reply to this disagreement.