3 Bad Anti-Gun Control Arguments
Gun control is a huge issue in the U.S. because of the frequent mass shootings that occur around the nation, and the issue is driving many people crazy. The main reason why everyone is losing their minds over gun control is because everyone has an opinion about it. However, the opinions of an individual do not matter in a democratic country. What matters most are the needs of a society as a whole.
People love to express themselves and state their opinions about gun control on social media. Many people have good ideas, and many don't. Also, many people tend to use analogies to make points about gun control.
However, some of these analogies are just horrible. They typically don't accurately convey whatever point a person is trying to make. Also, many people try to convince others that if there was a gun ban, people would find other ways to commit acts of mass violence. Yes, that is true. People will find other ways, but all the typically used analogies are still not good enough. Here are three commonly used analogies and why they aren't effective arguments against gun control.
1. Comparing Knives to Guns
It's been posited over and over again via social media that people could simply use knives instead of guns when going on a killing spree. So why not ban knives in the same way that anti-gun activists want to ban guns?
Yes, it is true that knives can be very dangerous, and they can be used in a killing spree. However, knives have a different purpose. They are tools that are used to complete simple tasks in the everyday life of a person. It just so happens that knives can actually be used to kill.
Yes, there are knives that are specifically made for hunting and killing, but those knives cannot be carried around freely. Hunting knives, throwing knives, and others that are used for killing or hunting, are regulated by their length and size in many states.
Anyway, the analogy of comparing knives to guns makes no sense. Guns, unlike most knives, are strictly used to kill! Whether it is used for hunting an animal or used to defend oneself, a gun is designed to kill or injure a living being. Even though a knife can be used as a weapon, a knife's other purpose is to serve as a cutting and slicing tool.
2. Terrorists Have Used Planes to Commit Acts of Violence
This is one of the most outrageous points to make when arguing that gun control is not needed. It's hard to believe that this point has been seriously used in many social media debates about gun control. Many people dismiss discussions of gun control by pointing out that the most devastating terrorist attack to occur on U.S. soil utilized airplanes.
When people state that planes are dangerous, they are insinuating that airplanes should be banned because they can be used to kill people. Arguing this point is ridiculous, and people who do so rarely address the fact that safety measures have been implemented to prevent airplane hijackings and terrorist attacks. Nobody can deny that airplanes can be very dangerous, but air travel and planes are regulated and closely monitored to prevent acts of mass violence. Therefore, using airplanes to dismiss gun control is not a good strategy.
Even though airplanes can be used as weapons, that is not their intended purpose. Airplanes, especially commercial ones like those used during the 9/11 terrorist attacks, are used for transporting people.
The terrorists that weaponized commercial airliners to attack the people of the United States used planes in a manner that deviated from their intended purpose, and it took those criminals years to develop and enact their plans. They didn't just decide to hijack planes and crash them into the World Trade Center all in one day.
Plotting to highjack a plane is not the same as buying an AR-15 and walking into an establishment to go on a killing spree. Sorry, but comparing guns to airplanes is not a strong argument to make when defending the right to own guns.
3. Banning Cars Because Drunk Drivers Have Killed People
Banning cars is another common argument that is used in debates about gun control. Many gun activists will point out how car ownership is not illegal even though cars can be used as dangerous weapons.
Cars can be used as weapons and many cars have been used to cause fatalities. So, the argument is that cars are not the problem, the person who uses them violently is the problem. This is a good point, but a car is not really the same as a gun.
Cars were invented to be a means of transportation. They were not created to be used as weapons. Cars can be used to kill and often times, they cause fatalities by accident. Guns, however, are strictly made to kill. So, the analogy of potentially banning cars is flawed. Vehicle use and ownership are also regulated and monitored to prevent vehicular fatalities.
If argued responsibly, this point could actually support a need for gun control because it clearly demonstrates how people are the true problem and not the gun, vehicle, or device being used for violence. In the end, the analogy suggests that gun control could be managed in a manner that is similar to the response to drunk driving.
Is Gun Control Really Needed?
For the most part, having the right to bear arms is a beautiful thing. It is a right that many countries do not offer their citizens. However, times change and laws can get a bit outdated. This, of course, is another point in favor of gun control.
It is necessary to examine the reasons why America continues to experience mass shootings. Perhaps aspects of American society have created social problems that cause people to go nuts and go on killing sprees. Nowadays, many seemingly normal people choose to buy assault rifles and use them to kill others. As a result, gun control has become a major issue in the U.S. What is the answer to this problem? Who knows? But while Americans attempt to solve this problem, they should stop using bad analogies to argue against and undermine gun control efforts.
Maybe our society needs to think outside of the box and look into mental health issues or other potential threats to societal well-being. Until we figure out the actual root of the issue, people should stop using sorry-ass analogies to defend the right to bear assault rifles.
This content reflects the personal opinions of the author. It is accurate and true to the best of the author’s knowledge and should not be substituted for impartial fact or advice in legal, political, or personal matters.