Robert M. Mihalek wrote:
>> That reasoning is totally wrong. Substitute "car" for the word "gun"
> and you'll see how ridiculous your statement is. A gun is a tool, like
> a car or a drill or a knife. If you know how to use it, and respect the
> power of the tool, then it is only logical that safer operation will
> result. Would you favor banning driver's education as a way to decrease
> the number of adolescents dying on the roads?
That reasoning is at least as wrong. Unlike a car, or a drill, a gun is a tool
expressly designed to kill at range. To know how to use it is to know a
relatively efficient means of killing others while avoiding the risk that
killing with, say, a knife entails. And respect for its power (i.e.
consequences for others) is not a necessary result of training in its use for
its intended purpose. This is, again, unlike a car, or a drill, where training
is designed to prevent accidental injury.
Note: I do not really think that more laws would prevent death from gun wounds
either, in the States; it's just that the argument you present is, IMHO,