A few writups here are trying to show that
guns,
knives and
cars are still
safe if used responsibly, and then
drawing the conclusion that the difference between the items is irrelevent, and hinges completely on the responsability of the user.This is pure BS.
We are a
tool using
species. We either have a need and develop a tool to help solve the need, or we develop a tool and find a
need for it to
solve. A
car is a tool which was developed
expressly for the purpose of
transporting people from one place to another. A knife was developed to solve a wide range of needs, from
self protection, to
food preparation, to aid in
building a shelter, etc. A gun was created to
kill human beings, and continues to be, for hand guns, its sole intent. If you were to take a
statistical
study and correlate the number of guns in a given region and the number of
gun deaths in that same
region, you would find it would be significantly higher than a similar study on cars/car death and knives/knife death (You might be able to do planes/plane death, but that is another comparison which is shady at best). You could even take the numbers out which represent people using these items improperly (so the study only reflects those who know how to use, are trained in and (if required) licensed) and the results would be
substantially similar.
I'm not saying "Let's outlaw/license/restricts guns/gun types/gun usage" (
That's another argument entirely). What I am saying is that the arguments presented on this writup to refute the original writeup are
fundamentally flawed (even though the original is flawed as well, that doesn't mean you should use flawed arguments to further your
propaganda).
In fact,
don't use comparisons at all. If guns are good then you should be able to say so, and make a complete
argument that stands on its own without having to reach for the "X, Y and Z are also dangerous if used improperly"
crutch which too many
fanaticists
teeter on top of.