While I can understand the simple
logic of the statement, this debate is better suited as being called something like "Weapons vs. Mindset". The
weapon of choice is somewhat
moot.
Sure, firearms are quick, efficient and
impersonal. Let's say that
firearms were never invented. That still leaves lots of room for using other possible implements of harm. Hardware and grocery stores are full of them.
A band of bank robbers could likely use knives,
slingshots or even rocks for that matter. Those with rudimentary knowledge of basic chemical interactions might even don gas masks while mixing ammonia and bleach.
It still goes back to the question of why humans act
violently. Power is a prime component.
Conversely, why do basically non-violent people carry weapons? In the time before modern-day "
civilization" this was first and foremost, to hunt. Then came the need for
protection against other tribes and so forth.
It is interesting to note that there are still communities around the globe that legally require that its citizens and visitors MUST carry a weapon. Is it a surprise that these areas experience generally lower crime rates? I think not. (I will provide statistics on this when I ever get the time!) In cases like these it seems that
crime is easily dissuaded since it is common knowledge that an area's residents consciously protect themselves.
Again, why the need for these types of laws? Over the centuries has there been such a proliferance of violence-prone people? It would seem so.