Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The "Guns Are Inanimate Objects" Argument
While it is true that guns are simply tools and have no ability to harm anybody on their own, the assertion that they have no part in the perpetration of violence is absurd.
If properly motivated, somebody can kill their enemy with a pair of nail-clippers, but this is irrelevant to the greater regulatory scheme. Just because there are other ways for people to kill one another, it doesnt mean that it isnt in the public interest to restrict the most common way people currently kill each other.
Guns give people a quick, easy, cheap, and relatively detached (compared to stabbings/beatings) method of killing peopleeven large numbers of people. By making killing easy, guns directly contribute to the thought process that must go into a killing and facilitate even higher body counts. Without guns, people would still kill others, but it would be far more difficult to accrue high body counts.
There is a good reason why guns have become the mass murderers weapon of choice; they are simply the most efficient way of getting the job done. Weapons other than guns can be used to kill large numbers of people, but none are as easy to obtain or use as guns:
Bombs may be lethal to large numbers of people, but they take expertise to build and are very risky for an amateur to handle (just look at the number of people who manage to mangle themselves playing with fireworks).
Knives are lethal in the right hands, but they can only kill one person at a time and have no ability to kill at a distance.
Cars can been used to kill people but they are far too large and unwieldy to replace guns (you cant exactly put one in your backpack to sneak into a school).
https://theprogressivecynic.com/debunking-right-wing-talking-points/refuting-gun-enthusiasts-anti-gun-control-arguments/
If properly motivated, somebody can kill their enemy with a pair of nail-clippers, but this is irrelevant to the greater regulatory scheme. Just because there are other ways for people to kill one another, it doesnt mean that it isnt in the public interest to restrict the most common way people currently kill each other.
Guns give people a quick, easy, cheap, and relatively detached (compared to stabbings/beatings) method of killing peopleeven large numbers of people. By making killing easy, guns directly contribute to the thought process that must go into a killing and facilitate even higher body counts. Without guns, people would still kill others, but it would be far more difficult to accrue high body counts.
There is a good reason why guns have become the mass murderers weapon of choice; they are simply the most efficient way of getting the job done. Weapons other than guns can be used to kill large numbers of people, but none are as easy to obtain or use as guns:
Bombs may be lethal to large numbers of people, but they take expertise to build and are very risky for an amateur to handle (just look at the number of people who manage to mangle themselves playing with fireworks).
Knives are lethal in the right hands, but they can only kill one person at a time and have no ability to kill at a distance.
Cars can been used to kill people but they are far too large and unwieldy to replace guns (you cant exactly put one in your backpack to sneak into a school).
https://theprogressivecynic.com/debunking-right-wing-talking-points/refuting-gun-enthusiasts-anti-gun-control-arguments/
The "inanimate object" defense and other lame gun fetishist arguments in support of the right to carry deadly weapons in public are, as the article above states, absurd. Guns are designed for one purpose only: to kill or maim (either offensively, or defensively). Target practice, "recreational" shooting, etc. are all aimed at one activity: to become proficient at hitting a target for lethal purposes.
The gun violence epidemic in this country is far and above the levels in other civilized countries in the world, and the right-wing gun lobby excels at selling this statistic in order to sell more guns for "protection." On the one hand they say that we don't have a gun violence problem, but on the other they say that we need to protect ourselves from gun violence.
Neoconservative right-wing double-speak at its finest.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 3992 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The "Guns Are Inanimate Objects" Argument (Original Post)
billh58
Mar 2017
OP
Aristus
(68,269 posts)1. There's no limit to the rationalizing people will do to excuse the culpability
of their favorite fetish-object.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)2. Trayvon Martin would not have been murdered if Zimmerman did not have a gun. Zman would have sat in
car and never stalked, intimidated and shot Martin, without his gun. Pretty much the same for the majority of shootings.
scscholar
(2,902 posts)3. Considering how often they just go off...
being inanimate doesn't matter. They still kill.