My new commuting setup.
There exists one common argument that gun rights people* use to counteract proposals for more regulations on firearms. It’s in the form of a comparison of firearms to something innocuous that also kills people, like pools or kitchen knives. Then a reductio ad absurdum is used to demonstrate a logical consequence of the lawmaking (as if lawmaking really made logical sense), i.e., we should regulate the use of pools and kitchen knives because sometimes they kill people.
This is probably the worst argument gun rights supporters can make, for two simple reasons. The primary utility of firearms, if used for moral ends (self-defense) or immoral ends (mugging, other forms of coercion), is to stop or kill people through the force of a bullet. The primary utility of, say, pools are for swimming. A pool being the primary cause of death via drowning is not employing the pool’s primary utility, but a firearm used for an immoral purpose is still using its primary utility.
The other half is the purposeful vs. accidental death. When the threat of more regulations are invoked, it tends to be in response to immoral acts, not accidental deaths from guns. The physical harm from guns in these situations is from the purposeful use of its primary purpose. The death from drowning in a swimming pool is an accidental consequence of its existence.
So there’s two inconsistencies in the comparison that kill the argument for me: the primary utility problem and the accidental/purposeful problem. I could go deeper into this but I just wanted to air my bother with it.
Photo by Cyclelicious.
* I am pro-gun rights as an absolute but I don’t phrase it as such. Firearms are basically a piece of property so I couch the idea in basic private property rights terms rather than gun-specific ones. The gun-specific rhetoric is probably born out of the 2nd amendment and because of the encroachment of property rights by the state always seems to focus on firearms or other mechanisms of self-defense.
6 Comments
Excellent blog!
Thanks!
I find this argument to be weak, as well. When examining possible weapons that have other uses (knives, sticks, rocks), the argument should look at the intent of the person, rather than the utility of the object. Someone desiring to take another’s life will find any means available to do so. Therefore, the person is culpable, not the weapon. The primary use of a gun is for killing; however, guns don’t simply kill people, but also animals for food (or pesky rabbits that invade the garden). As a rural dweller, I view guns as just another tool.
Yeah, Maureen mentioned the hunting use. I only mentioned the self-defense thing because people bring up regulations when guns are used immorally against people and carrying guns for self-defense is closely associated with that.
But what would you say back to someone who said that guns make it easier to kill and that’s a reason for more regulations?
I use my gun to light my cigarettes (smoking is also a God-given right). So your argument is a moot point.
There is no argument against a man who uses a gun like that. He gets an automatic pass.