Quote:
Originally Posted by jsarno
No...that's not what he's saying. He's saying there is an overraction going on. You can't use the argument that it kills people. It doesn't. People kill people.
|
Well, that's certainly the impression I got from Hog's quote. Further, I think Saden's sentiment is correct.
Saden's point (I think) is that, even though the use of each can result in death (as correctly asserted by Hog), guns, alchohol and planes pose different problems for and different types of the threats to public safety
and to assert (as Hog does) that the possible solution for the threat/problem posed by guns is equally applicable to the different threats/problems posed by planes or alchohol - is illogical.
Fact is, because of the
inherent danger presented by the use and/or availability of guns, they should be heavily regulated just like any other inherently dangerous machines/objects/devices.
Last I checked the private use of airplanes is heavily regulated (FAA anybody) - Can't fly a plane through the middle of town, can you? Same with alchohol - Can't buy alchohol unless your of a certain age. can you? Given the danger presented by guns, it seems perfectly reasonable for the public to expect, just as with planes and alchohol, that limitations be placed on who can have them and restrictions exist as to the public places you can carry them.
As I said before, people kill people - guns just make it easier to do so. For that reason, their use and availability should be subject to strict regulation AND unlawful ownership or their misuse of them should be severely punished.