Clearly, the status quo indicates that we have a problem compared to other developed nations. There are those who would rather ignore the statistics, and those people use the statistics as evidence that we all need to be armed to deal with the problem.
I want to specifically address a concept that I hear frequently. Those on the "unlimited" side of the Second Amendment discussion use the argument "When guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns". While I don't believe in revoking rights to own non-military grade weapons, I want to examine this facetious claim in detail.
First of all, behind every slogan are specific claims. This slogan includes the following assertions.
- Criminals are a danger to society.
- Criminals are resourceful
- Criminals will not be restricted by laws prohibiting access to assault-grade weapons
So, what would we expect to be true if all these assertions are true? What would we see in our society?
Well, we already have quite destructive portable weapons that are under restricted access. Hand grenades, rocket propelled grenades, shoulder mounted missiles, bazookas, etc. Yet, someone who wanted to quickly murder a group of people would be far more effective at taking out an entire building with one of these weapons rather than an assault rifle. Much more efficient at creating shock and calamity.
So, where are our resourceful criminals looking for firepower on the black market? Do we see schizophrenic community college dropouts blowing up city blocks with hand grenades? I submit that you don't. The tragic violence in our country is perpetrated with legally accessible weapons. Which leads me to a personal direct refutation of the final assertion.
Criminals (especially the borderline mentally ill kind) are as opportunistic and lazy as the rest of us. If it takes extra effort or risk to acquire their means of wreaking havoc, they likely will not do it.
No comments:
Post a Comment