Even though I already did my first blog on why guns are a good protection and should not be banned I thought I should support that one with this blog post. I came across this again on a facebook ad and it sparked my interest. It supports my idea of the first post stating if someone wants to commit a crime or take a life they can do so without the use of a firearm.
The big debate is how dangerous firearms are and how many crimes are committed with the amount of deaths related to them. In the article I read it states more people were killed from bicycles in the year 2010 compared to the amount of deaths from a firearm from the years of 2000 to 3013. If the debate is the ban of harmful or deadly weapons how can some people justify firearms should be banned and not something like bicycles after seeing this comparison. The article states "Murders with “feet,” “fists,” and cutting instruments such as knives vastly outweigh the number of mass shooting deaths." It ends by asking the questions "What do you think? Do you think the level of attention given to mass shootings is disproportionate to the number of deaths caused by them? Or do you think the level of attention is about right."
The article stands up for gun rights as the title indicates. I agree with the reasoning and believe it is cogent reasoning. If dangerous objects are to be banned, looking at the comparison above, bicycles should be banned also. Other things like knives or other such objects should be also since those objects are responsible for the death of many many people.
No comments:
Post a Comment