05 June, 2012

Why guns?

There really is no longer any justification for handguns being legal. There is marginal justification for a rifle, I suppose, in the historical context of forming a militia. And if we are ethically willing to assert that hunting is okay, then a rifle still has its place.

In contrast, handguns are designed for shooting people. In that sense, you could fairly assert that handguns are appropriate for enforcing the law because they are practical for an officer to use in any situation where they may need to have a weapon. And, of course, handguns are really effective for committing crimes.

I would go so far as to say that the top two uses of handguns are 1) committing crimes and 2) law enforcement. The use of a handgun, effectively, for personal, lawful self-defense is so far down that list, it is essentially negligible.

So why are guns legal?

No argument has any validity in the face of the number of gun-related deaths and crimes we see each year. I will not even refute them one by one here because it's been done before.

I would be perfectly okay with guns being owned only illegally or by the police. There would be far fewer on the street than there are now, and crimes of passion by otherwise lawful individuals (especially involving alcohol or drugs) would drop dramatically.

We have tried this system for hundreds of years. Why not try something different? Why not experiment?

Why not no guns?

No comments:

Post a Comment