This is not an opinion. This is one of two opposing arguments I will be sharing for the purposes of expanding my thinking and scrutinising my current beliefs. While I do not intend to share my conclusive opinion on the subject matter, I invite you to make use of the comment section if you have any valuable insights.
It may be true that guns don't kill people, and that rather it is we who kill each other. But if we are going to argue that a gun is merely a tool, then we should have the honesty to admit that it is a tool that reminds us of our capacity to kill one another upon its very observation. For this reason, I wonder what the psychological effects are, not only for one who seeks safety in carrying a weapon at all times, but to a public who witness their fellow community members carrying firearms on a regular basis.
While carrying a gun, or observing others to be carrying them, it is impossible to escape that reminder of why we believe we need to. And for this reason I question if the safety we draw from guns is not rendered redundant by the trust we lose for one another by convincing ourselves we have need for them. And a declining trust for another, begotten through the constant reminder of our capacity to harm one another, may serve to increase the frequency of which we use guns to harm one another.
Forgetting the psychological ramifications of an armed public, and focusing merely on the imminent dangers posed, we can find that there are many. An armed public invites many potential escalations to every day occurrences that would otherwise pose far less of a threat.
Drunken bar fights could easily become drunken shoot outs. Scorned lovers, finding themselves armed at the wrong emotionally driven moment, could quickly become passionate murderers. And a humiliating public experience could evoke a devastating response from someone who is armed.
Many of us will suffer experiences, tragedies or betrayals in our lives that provoke extreme bouts of rage within us, and at such a time, when our decision making processes are overwhelmed by emotion, the worst thing we can hope for is that we happen to be armed with a gun.
For the great many of us, the understanding of the value of human life may be enough to prevent us acting out our fury. But certainly for some, carrying a weapon at such times is likely to lead to their making a mistake that could cost the life of another, and a regretful existence for their own self going forward.
There is also the danger of children acquiring guns from their parents, and acting irresponsibly with them. There is the danger of people acting out of fear or anxiety and shooting people they ought not to have. And there is the potential for the police to wrongly gun down far more citizens for fear of them using the weapon that they so visibly carry.
Guns are powerful weapons that can end a life in a split second, and so it is of great danger to place them in the hands of anyone who does not have the very highest levels of emotional stability and control, firearms training, and a strong understanding of the value of any human life and the need to protect each one of them.
Yes, this makes much more sense than the argument for the use of guns.
In the end, it's about violence. And we know up from childhood that violence causes more harm than good.
Your arguments made me thinking if I ever had the true feeling of wanting someone to injure physically or even to kill another human being while being furious. I definitely can say "No". No matter how aroused I got I never felt an urge to kill or destroy a living being.
I find it irritating that you did two separated posts. It can lead to the notion that despite you saying it's not your opinion, it will be taken as agreement as the counter argument is too "far" from reach.
Funnily enough I think that people ought to be permitted to carry guns. I think they ought to be permitted to do whatever they want. But, I do of course wish that while given the option, we would opt not to arm ourselves.
I wish I could say that I have never thought of killing anyone, but I did at a time when a sibling of mine was brutally attacked in the most cowardly of fashions - an attack that lost him an eye. But, I do not believe I would have succumb to my rage if the opportunity to act upon had of presented itself to me. I like to think, at least, that I would have mustered the strength to forgive, as I have done now.
I quite enjoy the fact that you're unable to tell which side of the argument I agree with. But, you probably won't have to worry about that anymore given the new approach I am taking with today's topic.
Congratulations @skitz! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click here to view your Board
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPTo support your work, I also upvoted your post!
Do not miss the last post from @steemitboard:
This argument is incredibly weak because it ignores the elephant in the room which is the state. Your previous argument identifies the enemy, this one assumes everyone is an enemy.