Monday, May 26, 2008

But guns aren't banned yet

Hooo boy. I was waiting for this.

Cabuyao robbery debunks gun ban rationale

The idiot who wrote this is probably one of those who think that turning a modern city into the wild west is the solution to crime and violence. Of course if he spent more time studying logic instead of dreaming of gunfights he'd have been able to make a better argument. He says

Had there been a legally armed citizen carrying a weapon that was concealed, it might not have been so easy for the robbers to commit the murders.

without considering that banks require everyone who comes in to deposit firearms with the guard. Allowing customers to come inside with concealed weapons is suicide for any bank, even in his wild west fantasy land.

He then parrots the pro-gun line:

I think we all agree that criminals shouldn’t have guns. But what’s the advantage of disarming the good people?

But he missed a crucial point: someone is lobbying FOR a gun ban. People ARE allowed to own and carry guns today and what good did that do?

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sheep Boy... You are an idiot.

missingpoints said...

^Huh?

Jose Jean Paolo said...

Guns are tools, which is to say that they are neither good nor bad. It is a neutral instrument whose role is defined by those who wield it, is it not?

I agree with you when you say that the writer missed the point. I think the issue should be the lack of strong security, the missing presence and slow response of uniformed police.

That being said, I'd also like to say that a gun ban is not a viable solution. I think we shouldn't take away the legal choice of wielding firearms. Proper education on use of guns,would be a agreeable settlement, wouldn't it?

I know its a tad bit crass and over used but I think that saying " It is better to have a sword and not need it, than none when ...( I forget how it ends, but I think you get my point :D)".

(Huh? as well to the first response)

missingpoints said...

Yup, but an instrument whose sole purpose is to injure/kill. Unlike a knife, a gun has only one purpose, which makes it less "neutral" than your regular tools.

The "it's better to have a sword..." applies to individuals. But society overall benefits more from civilians not being allowed to carry guns at all.

Re: proper education. Do you have any idea how many people circumvent the required training (not to mention the physical and psychological exams) for a permit to carry? Imagine the LTO renewal. It'll be easier to just ban anyone who doesn't wear a uniform (police /military or private security) from carrying guns. That way any civilian who does carry a piece can be arrested.

Of course this doesn't stop criminals from carrying guns but it might just make it easier to identify them. If we make a habit of carrying firearms then it'll be more difficult to tell if the guy carrying one is legit. With a gun ban, basta may nakita kang baril isumbong mo sa pulis.

missingpoints said...

Oh, and pro-gun guys like to perpetuate the myth that an armed citizenry can stop crime. At present there has only been one incident of a private gun owner stopping criminals but it was in his home, thus not necessitating a permit to carry.