Guns are not the issue.
The aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings has brought gun laws back to our nation's attention. Society's opinion on political issues fall into two categories, either completely obvious or heavily divided. It's completely obvious the murder that took place was wrong. However, Both sides claim that this could have been prevented if the laws were more in their favor. On issues that are deeply debated, I always feel that the fight is over the wrong issue. In this case, guns are not the issue.
Guns don't kill people, nor do they protect. It is often stated that an armed society
would be able to respond more quickly to various threats against it. Israel and Iraq are heavily armed, as armed as a military presence can be, yet they are no more safe then the rest of the world. Instead of mass shootings, they use bombs. No one brought up the debate on gun laws when Timothy McVeigh bombed a federal building in Oklahoma, because the issue was obvious.
The lack of guns doesn't remove crime either. The UK is an often cited example of a gun-less society. There, criminals have no issue using melee weapons, and there is an higher rate of "hot" burglaries. Hot burglaries is when the victim is present in the occupancy. The US sees a lower rate of hot burglaries because burglars are afraid of an armed owner. Oh, and UK still has to deal with bombs.
Gun laws will not impact crime, only the face of crime. This is the liability of having a free society where people are allowed to make their own choices. In a nation of 300 million, most people make socially acceptable choices. However, given enough time, even with the probability of 0.0001% (and it's probably less), one person will choose to hurt as many people as they can.
Guns don't kill people, nor do they protect. It is often stated that an armed society
would be able to respond more quickly to various threats against it. Israel and Iraq are heavily armed, as armed as a military presence can be, yet they are no more safe then the rest of the world. Instead of mass shootings, they use bombs. No one brought up the debate on gun laws when Timothy McVeigh bombed a federal building in Oklahoma, because the issue was obvious.The lack of guns doesn't remove crime either. The UK is an often cited example of a gun-less society. There, criminals have no issue using melee weapons, and there is an higher rate of "hot" burglaries. Hot burglaries is when the victim is present in the occupancy. The US sees a lower rate of hot burglaries because burglars are afraid of an armed owner. Oh, and UK still has to deal with bombs.
Gun laws will not impact crime, only the face of crime. This is the liability of having a free society where people are allowed to make their own choices. In a nation of 300 million, most people make socially acceptable choices. However, given enough time, even with the probability of 0.0001% (and it's probably less), one person will choose to hurt as many people as they can.
0 comments:
Post a Comment