We can agree that humans have violent tendencies and that some will inevitably act on them. But let’s flip your argument: if people are violent and will always find a way to harm others, should we then legalize automatic weapons? But why stop there? Explosives? Heavy artillery? Personal nukes?
Maybe we can agree that limiting an individual’s capacity for violence is a sensible goal. Most countries restrict access to guns which seems like a reasonable place to draw the line.
I’m just going to put it this way.
People will find a way to be violent.
So we take away their guns, what are we down to? Sharp weapons.
We take away their sharp weapons, what are we down to? Blunt objects.
We take away those, what’s next? Creative ways people can get with non-conventional ways of harming others.
What then? And if we somehow regulated that or controlled it, people can get violent just by their hands alone.
The point again of the matter is, people WILL find a way to get violent, even if you take everything from them such as weapons.
And yet homicide is so much higher in the USA than other wealthy countries.
I’m afraid your logic doesn’t hold up.
We can agree that humans have violent tendencies and that some will inevitably act on them. But let’s flip your argument: if people are violent and will always find a way to harm others, should we then legalize automatic weapons? But why stop there? Explosives? Heavy artillery? Personal nukes?
Maybe we can agree that limiting an individual’s capacity for violence is a sensible goal. Most countries restrict access to guns which seems like a reasonable place to draw the line.