The presupposition that guns are otherwise useless and are, therefore, a reasonable dangerous item to remove from society is okay only for those parts of society which agree that guns have little enough value to make them worth owning.
I don't smoke cigarettes so, with the exception of the fireplace lighter I use to light my grill, I don't have many lighters in my house. It would be entirely inappropriate, however, for me to suggest removing standard cigarette lighters and matches from everyone else's households to keep them safe from fire. If left up to a non-smoker AND a non-griller, someone very easily make the suggestion to remove that one, more danger from the vast laundry list of dangers that kids might get involved with.
But why should that person, along with like-minded people, get to decide for everyone else...particularly for all those people who actually use their cigarette lighters safely and always make sure they stay out of the hands of kids?
Having said all that, I'm not trying to make any statements about the use and/or ownership of guns. It's an important topic that has a lot of good points being made on all sides of the issue. I'm just saying that it's not enough to simply use the fact that something is dangerous as an excuse to hand-pick things you can take away from people. From a legal standpoint, and a logical one, it's not a very supportable tactic to follow. |
