Actually there is nothing wrong with the logic "gun kills so we should ban them".
I have read the examples you quoted about airplanes, kitchen knifes, SUV, etc. But you have COMPLETELY missed the point. All those things you mentioned serve very useful purposes. The gain from keeping them far outweighs the additional safety from losing them.
not true.
if you were to weigh the absolute benefit and absolute deficit the presence of one additional car brings to the world, then i would say that it is entirely possible that you might actually end up with a net deficit, like it or not. think pollution, road congestion (perhaps some benefits, while immediate are not that realistic after all). i am sure that someone can walk faster in orchard road when it is having a traffic jam, than in a car. you must also consider what we would call, externalities.. things that actually reduce the social benefit of any commodity.
there are other uses for guns. hunting (yes, people derive pleasure from the killing of harmless animals), defense against not just PEOPLE, but also other things, like animals, especially if you are a farmer. you might also say, what does a nonprofessional photographer need a professional camera for? what does a non-physicist need a physics textbook for?
if you must have more solid examples which are fairer comparisons to guns per se, then perhaps kitchen implements for a person who does not use them, axes, chainsaws, the list goes on. you
simply have no way of proving that someone does not need a gun in his lifetime, that is my point. if we say that we don't need to prove it, then we should just BAN people from not buying cars that they don't drive - yes it happens.. BAN people from buying knives that they collect.. you do see where i'm going do you? back to the freedom part. are we to say that if someone buys something that could be a killer tool, but he doesn't actually use it, that it will eventually end up harming society? the answer is clear.
If there isn't such an easy access to firearms, many things could happen. He doesn't have the willpower nor the means to get a firearm OR in the process of obtaining one, he gets caught. Or He changes his mind halfway through.
OF COURSE, everyone knows it is not the gun that kills and the fault lies in the hand that pulls the trigger. Ultimately, I feel the point is what is the benefits of gun possession have compared to the harm it does. It is not where the blame lies but rather which course of action is more beneficial for the country.
yes, many things could happen. do you think all depressed teenagers find that the easiest way to kill people to relieve their pent up frustrations is all the time a firearm? or that without a firearm teenagers are resourceless? there are so many other things, like i've said. a simple household cleaner mixed with food to toxic levels, or other sorts of chemicals readily accessible to anyone and everyone. school labs have chemicals easily available within reach.
you have to read my whole argument as a whole, it does not come together without you piecing it together, and i do not have time to type an entire essay where the structure is solid. i have mentioned all this before already, if you had bothered to read. it is all very easy to sit back and say that we all know the absolute benefits that gun possession bring to society, that it is negligible, and that it brings more harm. but have you ever stopped to think that the media hypes things up for its own purpose?
think again - how many countries have people who get killed by guns, who are on the global scene? yet you only have so many reports flowing out from countries.. which i think you'll find have had guns on the political plate at one point in time or another.
the media is a powerful tool. it can build up artistes from zero to hero - just look at the mtv success stories. i'd wager that if the media keeps drumming on the fact that falling flower pots claim xxx lives per year, people would start making noise about how their neighbours have flower pots on their ledges, and start asking for a law to prevent this. but how often do you get a totally clean media? you get varied reports (as in the case of guns, even in statistics).. it all depends on your agenda to start with.
