Some people have made the statement cars kill more people than firearms. So why don’t we ban cars? Both vehicles and firearms are dangerous. The usefulness or what is called utility of vehicles is obvious and benefits our lives daily. We accept the danger of modern transportation in exchange for the benefit. For the gun control advocate, the danger of firearms outweighs any practical benefits. For the pro-gun advocate those who are against firearms have failed to recognize the utility of firearms.
The utility of firearms is multifaceted and recognizing them requires a sagacious perspective. For many gun control advocates the probability of being a victim is so low that a firearm seems like overkill. They feel the proper place for firearms to exist is where only law enforcement should be armed. They see no probable threat to individuals who are responsible and prudent. And of course, there are other non-lethal options. To them firearms are instruments of violence and they prefer them to disappear altogether.
To the pro-gun advocate, gun control advocates live protected lives in gated communities. They reside in an echo chamber of liberal ideals and lofty pursuits of hope for mankind. They are blind to human suffering and decadence, which being out of sight is also out of mind. To the pro-gun advocate removing firearms is a dangerous precedent and exposes society to the threat of corruption and tyranny. Unfortunately history does not favor superior reason but sides with the superior force.
Students of history discover that similar to insurance, arms are a necessary evil. Accidents happen and likewise evil men (and women) will always be present in all strata of society and positions of authority. Therefore, there will always be victims. Potential victims can use a gun as a force multiplier to confront a potential attacker. Used as such a firearm is an equalizing deterrent. What makes it dangerous is what makes it useful.
For a real life case in point, my daughter-in-law was home with her young children when, after several verbal warnings that she was armed, an intruder confronted her in her home. When the firearm was presented, a life was actually saved. He was held at gun point until authorities arrived. Do you think she values her firearm?
I agree and think that people should be able to have guns. They clearly provide value in the case of protection.
I don't think that they need assault rifles for protection though. These were designed to be used as weapons of war and don't belong in the hands of civilians.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That is understandable at first but then you need to consider, any law that limits firearms tips the scale to the criminals favor. Besides criminals aren’t always civilians. I appreciate your comment.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit