texshelters

Posts Tagged ‘Gun Violence Regulation Glock 19 Jared Loughner Guns Knives’

There is no Analogy for a Gun

In Current Events, Human Rights and the Constitution on January 12, 2011 at 19:27

Why do people defend the use of semi-automatic gun with magazines that hold more than ten rounds? That is a question I wonder when the guns before life crowd comes out of the wood work after yet another tragedy like we had in Tucson on Saturday, at Va. Tech, Columbine and other places.

One of the arguments is that knives kill people, so why not ban them. First, this is a technique used when one can’t defend their position. It’s called “distraction”. If you can’t defend the use of semi-automatic guns with high capacity magazines (more than 10 or 15 rounds), then make a false analogy to show how ridiculous banning weapons is. Do I really have to explain how a knife is different from a gun? Really?  I have yet to see a semi-automatic hunting knife that could shoot 30+ rounds form a distance in about two minutes. A knife is a poor substitute for a gun. If it wasn’t, the U.S. army and the Taliban would bring a knife to a gun fight. Alas for some, this distinction is not obvious.

Then there is the other false analogy: automobiles kill people, so why not ban them? First, I have never called for the banning of guns. That is the first error in the logic. Second, a car was not created to kill. A car was invented as a mode of transportation for people and goods. Outside of personal protection and hunting, both involving killing or wounding, guns have no other legal uses other than target practice, skeet shooting and so forth. I suppose you could use a gun as a hammer, but that would not be what the gun was designed for. I think using a hammer to kill would be more effective (as one gun defender suggested) than using a gun as a hammer. However, there is that trouble with the reloading the hammer to shoot at a crowd. Moreover, why don’t the people comparing automobiles to guns ever suggest gun insurance (like for cars) be mandated and what we have to take a gun use test and register our guns like we do our cars? It’s because people only use the analogies when it suits their defense of guns. If they actually thought it through, they would see the analogy is not apt.

Why can’t gun advocates admit that guns were created to kill? Isn’t that the point of a gun, to kill or wound an intruder or take down your dinner, deer, rabbit, quail or other game animal? That is the primary function of a gun. I don’t see a problem with that fact or admitting that fact.  However, those that feel compelled to come to the defense of guns at all costs can’t admit it. Even those that would support Democratic issues such as health care for all and are against the war come out to defend gun with false analogies.  Guns don’t need the help; they can defend themselves.  It’s okay, no one want to take your gun away. We want to reduce gun violence.

Why this disconnect with the reality of what a gun does? Is it that gun advocates on the left or middle of American politics are ashamed of their stance and have to deny the real purpose of a gun? Will it create cognitive dissonance to say that guns were created to kill? Most on the right have no such shame.

Yes, seatbelts can kill too, as one gun defender suggested. Really? Is that where our discourse has devolved, comparing seat belts to guns because sometimes a person dies wearing a seatbelt? Why discuss what a gun is at all then if it is like everything else? In reality, there is no analogy for a gun.

Now that we have learned that guns were created to kill, we must ask ourselves what is the best and most effective way to regulate the use of guns and how to reduce gun violence without interfering with the legal use of the tool that can kill. We can start by questioning who can get a gun and how many bullets we really need to hunt or protect our home and what type of guns we need for those purposes. The NRA, gun and bullet manufacturers, and other guns first people don’t want you to ask those question because it means that the paranoia will subside, a rational discussing will ensue, gun manufacturers will sell fewer weapons, and the influence of the gun lobby in D.C. will be reduced.

Peace,
Tex Shelters