This article from courant.com
makes an assumption that a parking lot accident will result in an extortion of
money or a “shootout” if guns were involved.
This is purely just that an assumption and why if this encounter was
going to turn out so violently as the author assumes it would, did the drivers
of the other car not chase him down with his “deadly” car and run him off the
road? Because after all cars kill more
people than guns do.
What if the angry man had a knife would he then pull it and
stabbed in anger? If so we should ban
all knives, which is the same type of argument.
He claims that people with guns kill, but if we take away guns are we
not going to just find another way to kill if that is our intention? Boston showed the use of pressure cookers,
9-11 showed airplane use, the school stabbing in Los Angeles showed that a
knife can be used as well.
This article is completely biased and assumes too much and
uses “what if” statements to build an image, made up in his own head, of what
would have happened if the angry driver had a gun.
This whole gun control thing has gotten more attention than anything in the media lately. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. It is true what you said, if it wasn’t guns, it would be something else (knives for example).
ReplyDelete