|
I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the cars/guns comparison and you certainly can not leave murder out of the equation. Sure guns (just like cars) are tools, however a gun is a tool designed to kill. Maybe not people specifically, but nonetheless it was crafted to end life. A car on the other hand is crafted to ease transportation and that can be deadly, but it is still not the point of a car. The knife example is better, but a knife does have purpose outside of death. For the sake of argument though lets just say that a knifes purpose is to kill. That just goes to show that guns are not necessary and only serve to make killing easier.
Also the statistics are their and the misgivings lie in the definitions of terms. A defensive use of a gun can mean any number of things from brandishing it to stating that you have it to discharging it, while an offensive use strictly mean threatening violence and discharging with intent to harm. Furthermore, these statistics, even if accurate, can not anticipate violence (or lack thereof) in a gunless society. In my opinion, firearm ownership falls along the same line of nuclearist concepts of mutually assured destruction. They proliferate because of the fact that they proliferate. Ending them would end the need to have them in defense.
Finally, the founding fathers did see gun ownership as important to defend against tyranny. Unfortunately, this was over 200 years ago in a time where a large citizenry armed with hunting rifles could hope to fend off an oppressors military. In the modern age of tanks and missiles and nukes this is not remotely feasible. If you want to allow gun ownership to check tyranny then you are going to need to legalize military grade weaponry and I don't assume you would endorse that. If you would however we can discuss that point later on.
__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751
|