OK, I think I'm seeing your point. Is the second purpose of guns the DETERRANT of their use? Sort of the equivalent to our rationalization of having nukes? I can see that.
But, an increase in the supply of guns also increases the risk that they are not used for their intended purpose. Let's say the bad guys get X guns to commit crimes, and good citizens acquire Y guns to deter them. But, there is Z chance that the Y guns will be used incorrectly, not for their intended purpose. Accidentally, or by the bad guys.
I suppose we could attempt to figure out a formula, but that would require too much guessing. So, we try to reduce the possibility of Z, without affecting X or Y (you can't effectively reduce X without also reducing Y; in fact, gun advocates postulate that any law aimed at 'gun control' will reduce the ratio X/Y).
So, that would logically presume that we want to reduce the possibility Z; accidental or misuse. Some proposals that I know about are: 1) trigger guards that work (apparently, 2/3s of the ones out there today don't), 2) better training (mandatory classes?), 3) registration (to ensure 1 & 2).
Am I correctly stating what I will call the 'pro-gun' position? |
