In the wake of the Virginia Tech massacre, we will inevitably be presented with yet more calls for gun-control. Such incidents always produce calls for politicians to “do something.” And unfortunately, politicians who are ever-ready to cater to the emotional demands of a fearful public rush to demagogue the issue to their own advantage and to the public’s detriment. Yet despite the devastation brought on by Cho Seung-Hui with the use of two firearms, we cannot use it as justification to take unnecessary action. If we want to revisit the issue of gun-control, we must do so divorced from the emotional climate of a public massacre of monumental proportions. There must be an understanding of the fact that opponents of gun-control are not callously disregarding the effects of gun violence on the victims. This is simply one of many issues on which reasonable people can have honest and well-informed disagreement.
As one who is opposed to gun-control I can tell you that one reason that advocates of the Second Amendment see the arguments of gun-control advocates as specious is that the theories espoused in favour thereof rarely, if ever, fit the facts. Thus, once reason, logic, facts and evidence are injected into the debate one gets the impression that the agenda of Gun-Control Advocates goes well beyond their stated objectives.
Gun-control has been presented as a means of controlling and/or reducing incidents of violent crime. Nearly all arguments in favour thereof are rooted in a basic non causa, pro causa fallacy which forces the observer to surmise that gun-control proponents are being deliberately deceptive or are simply ignorant of the facts.
To believe that such an approach will cause a decrease in the rate of violent crime one must accept certain premises as axiomatic:
As one who is opposed to gun-control I can tell you that one reason that advocates of the Second Amendment see the arguments of gun-control advocates as specious is that the theories espoused in favour thereof rarely, if ever, fit the facts. Thus, once reason, logic, facts and evidence are injected into the debate one gets the impression that the agenda of Gun-Control Advocates goes well beyond their stated objectives.
Gun-control has been presented as a means of controlling and/or reducing incidents of violent crime. Nearly all arguments in favour thereof are rooted in a basic non causa, pro causa fallacy which forces the observer to surmise that gun-control proponents are being deliberately deceptive or are simply ignorant of the facts.
To believe that such an approach will cause a decrease in the rate of violent crime one must accept certain premises as axiomatic:
- That one predisposed to commit a violent crime will be dissuaded from such a course of action by the inability to legally acquire a firearm
- That most violent crimes, including crimes not resulting in physical injury to the victim, are committed with the use of firearms
- That there is a causal relationship between the existence of firearms in private hands and the rate of criminal activity.
But-for such theories, one would be hard-pressed to find a logical justification for gun-control. See full article HERE