: Ownership of guns can't be blamed for the violent state of society today anymore than ownership of cars can be blamed for the outrageous number of drunk-driving fatalities. Operation - not ownership - is where both problems start. Teaching others that murder is wrong, just like we teach that drunk-driving is wrong, is what needs to be done. But understand that neither of these things will stop gun(or any other form)violence or drunk-driving fatalities. In short, place the blame where it needs to be placed - individual irresponsibility. I don't think so.
The USE which a person finds in cars is driving. Cars are commodities made and sold for transportation. An accident - the misuse of cars - is an event where you literally misuse it. It was made for transportation, but misuse has led it to casualties.
The USE which a person finds in guns is killing. Guns are made for only one purpose - killing people. Bullets and shells need not have to be semi-automatic to hunt deers or ducks, would they? No. The hollow-point mercury slugs, you don't need these. What of bullets with teflon coating, or maybe powerful guns which pentrate the kevlar armor? The circumstances where people use these arms are specifically for killing, not for defending.
Guns and all subsequent types and utilities of arms have only one purpose - to kill. When a person uses it to kill someone, he has used it properly. It's not a misuse.
If the Constitutional right of arms - which a certain supreme justice official called "the most wide-spread misinterpretation of the constitution, a forgery in fact" - mean the right of self-defense, why can't they just manufacture non-lethal shock weapons only? That's because the manufacture of guns and its sales are the prime source of profit to some businessmen. "Hey, the instrument of killing was unleashed, therefore, you'll need this brand-new Saturdaynight special to defend yourselves. Buy it! Retail price 99.99$ !"
So, in fact, it is a moral issue. Since the vicious circle of "guns"/"more guns for self defense" has already begun, the only way in which it can be stopped is when you discard guns altogether, whether by peaceful solutions or by force. Because, advocating gun-sales, and kissing the asses of rich n' powerful NRA can never be justified.
Imagine this.
Everybody buys a gun. Everybody gets good education. Boy that would mean trouble for gun manufacturers. I remember what Charlton Hestin said referring to those high-school gun violences: "If only there was a single guard with a gun, this tragedy would have been stopped."
Gimme a break. If only the people didn't have access to guns, there would be no wasteful need for arming everyone on the street for a safe living.
What you buy, you buy it to use it.
Promoting educations instead of stopping gun-sales is a cheap way to support the gun manufacturers. Everytime a new powerful unit of weapon is put out in the markets, people will have to buy weapons powerful enough for countermeasures. Then you'll have to educate the people all over again, until they develop a new weapon.
Boy that's convenient, huh?
