This should be the last post on guns and gun control for some time, barring any compelling news on the subject. People recognize there is a violence problem in America, well, not really, the number of violent crimes have been on the decline for years. But the perception is there due to the kinds of headlines we read and news stories that lead. What is currently at the fore is to what degree if any more strictly regulating “assault weapons” (broadly defined, you can be sure) is the answer.
What leads the discussion with those of a liberal bent is how dangerous guns are, that the inanimate object ought to be regulated and not necessarily the people — in whom the malicious intent lies. Assuming it is reasonable to regulate the inanimate object, on what grounds do we base the regulation?
Given that statistically hammers, knives, fists, feet, and clubs are responsible for more murders than “assault rifles/weapons”, if we are going to regulate inanimate items based on the actual danger and harm they cause, and not mere potential harm and danger, it makes more sense to regulate hammers and blunt objects (i.e., clubs, sticks, ax handles et. al.) doesn’t it? So if liberals are actually concerned with the safety of the citizens then the scariness of the murder weapon should be irrelevant.
Thinking about discussions with liberals on this issue, when I or another conservative being up the fact that cars, knives, pencils, etc. can all be misused to kill, they always come back with the purpose of the weapon. I just don’t see how a thing’s purpose is relevant if our goal is to diminish the number of victims which have suffered harm by it.
So to the liberals who would like to see stricter regulations on guns, or bans instituted, why? If you want to curb the victims, shouldn’t we regulate the ones that cause the most real damage, for cogency’s sake?