Now, I’m not going to get mired in the raging gun control debate that has been going on since the Sandy Hook shootings (and the Aurora, Colorado shootings…and et cetera); however, I do feel the need to point out a rather annoying fallacy being propogated by the anti-gun control crowd. At times like this, people like to trot out the old canard that “guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” In other words, if someone is intent on killing, they will kill with or without the aid of a particular weapon.
Here’s the problem: the main argument anti-gun control types make about the need for Gun Rights is that guns are absolutely necessary for self-defense purposes, and taking people’s guns away would make them less safe in several ways. So, for defensive purposes, gun possesion matters, but for offensive purposes, it does not, because someone intent on killing will do so by simply pulling a knife out of their kitchen drawer or grabbing a large rock or what-have-you to get the job done.
This is what is known in the world of logic as a contradiction. You cannot argue (in good faith) both the necessity and triviality of gun ownership at the same time. Clearly, gun owners believe that they are better off defending themselves with guns rather than knives, and so are disingenuous when they say that psychopaths with knives are no more dangerous than psychopaths with guns.
As I said, I’m not taking sides in the gun control debate, but I do expect people to make their arguments without resorting to this kind of ridiculous discourse.