Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
we've dealt with this strawman before.
|
This isn't exactly a strawman in this context, especially considering it points out the oversimplification of your statement. Maybe I should point out that it would be more correct to say: "If guns cause violence, pencils cause marks."
Guns are designed to inflict violence, whether it be to inanimate objects or to living things. They are devices designed with the sole purpose of launching projectiles at a high velocity. What is the purpose of this action? It is not to help deliver information, as is the primary purpose of the pencil. It is to put holes in things, thus destroying them. This is why it should be far easier to obtain pencils than to obtain guns. It is also why we shouldn't use pencils as a comparison (i.e. as a red herring).
To say guns are primarily for defense or to act as an equalizer is to make an assumption that that is the most effective end to be achieved. Unfortunately, I am not satisfied that it is. (I, for one, would feel much safer by not carrying a gun.) Statistically, far too many people die from guns to suggest that they are tools of safety. Looking at domestic violence and suicide numbers alone would suggest that guns are also tools of destruction. And before you throw up some more suggestions about how one could just as easily kill oneself with a Molotov cocktail or by climbing to the roof of a building, remember just how quick and easy it is to fire a gun.
As far as these particular parents are concerned, they might be subject to a more direct responsibility for their actions, but I was speaking from a more general sense, as cases like these could set dangerous precedents. Parents often have little control over their teenagers, which is likely a reason why there are juvenile courts in the first place. I hope this makes what I wrote before a bit clearer.