Isn’t the right to life higher than the right to purchase a gun? And does a gun purchase threaten or enhance that right to life? The NRA always suggests that a gun enhances the right to life, even against the threat of other guns. Its straight line view ignores the paradox, the several places where its logic breaks down, and where its thinking in real cases is a proven failure.
The NRA’s common argument is a “what if” story. It rejects safety features and training (police receive), it ignores the large, overwhelming real body of experience to the contrary, that guns will not be used in public areas to end mass killing sprees. In abundant cases and timelines in urban neighborhoods, gun possession has consistently increased violence, not deterred it. In well armed areas (Chicago), deaths have gone up, not down.
As the NRA plays “what if” people are dying–overwhelming, incontrovertible proof that the argument is specious and self-serving. How many have to die before this argument’s empty logic is condemned as wrong?
A part of the argument’s charm is its fear, tied to the one purpose for which a gun is made: the discharge of deadly force, in the form of bullets fired by human hands.
But no gun will write music, raise a child, solve a math problem, sign a paycheck, kiss a spouse. Guns are the instruments–and instrumentality– that kill the people who do.
Trump and Other Republicans Do the Gun Lobby’s Bidding – The New York Times http://nyti.ms/1TLxbld