"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars." Image posted by Mpett2
Any tool can be used as a weapon: knives, box cutters, screwdrivers, etc. But we don’t ban those because we understand it is the individual at fault for the crimes they commit, not the tools that are used.
The same is true with guns. Having tougher gun laws is only going to keep law abiding citizens from getting them. And worse, it gives the criminals even more power. Imagine a citizenry that is able to protect themselves like Samuel Williams who defended the Casino he was in by shooting at two armed thieves. Criminals wouldn’t be as powerful.
Liberal: Don’t think so. Gun control is about controlling the most extreme type of guns, not guns in general.
Philip Yoakem: That’s an interesting comment. How does one define a gun as "extreme"? I know people who couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn with a shotgun, but I could put an eye our at midrange with a BB rifle. Aimed properly and at the correct distance that same BB could pass through the soft tissue of the eye and enter the brain. Hand strikes can be lethal. Ask a martial artist. So can any strike the does the proper damage – armed or unarmed. More bullets doesn’t necessarily equate to an effective shooter. So what’s the common factor linking the lethal force behind all these possibilities? Is it the "extreme" gun, or the "extreme" gunner? Anything can kill. So my question becomes this: does removing the tool fix the person? A logical redirect would be for one to say that some guns make it easier to kill… to which I would reply, "Easier?" Some people have lived through multiple bullet wounds while some have died of a single punch. Dying is easy. Period. Another popular counter-argument is that Gun Control makes certain guns harder to obtain. Does it? Are we assuming that the majority of those who use guns illegally obtain them through legal methods, placing their name and other information on record? All in all it leads to this last question (2-parter with a generalized "you"): Do guns scare you? Why?
(The Liberal has no substance with to reply.)
Liberal: Does it scare you to ban assault rifles?
Philip Yoakem: That’s circular logic. Not a good approach. Circular logic is at best flawed and at worst – a trap. If I say it scares me, then you ask me any number of questions as to why I assumedly oppose something that scares me. If I say it doesn’t scare me then you ask, "Then why not ban them?" Instead I return the question with another: Have they been banned before, and what, if any, were the actual results (fiscal impact; reduction, increase or no change in crime rate; manufacturers’ responses; etc.)? Ref: Federal Assault Weapons Ban; Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act; Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994)