That gun control is a consistent area of debate here on the Vine and in Internet forums throughout cyberspace is no surprise to anyone. I am struck, however, at how such debates consistently draw out plentiful examples of the braindead inanity that passes for cogent thought among those comfortable with the deaths of innocents as the price of maximum convenience and minimum accountability in firearm ownership. To protect that convenience and to shield themselves of accountability, many gun enthusiasts embrace arguments that any thinking person would euphemistically describe as self-servingly nescient. Among the numerous articles and debates around the subjects of gun control and gun violence, Viners have been confronted with the intellectual bankruptcy of commonly-offered arguments previously highlighted:
Today, we look at yet another of those asinine arguments. To wit, the ownership of guns should not be subject to regulation, in the opinion of 2nd Amendment fanatics, because the gun is nothing but a "tool". Regulating the use of hammers, screwdrivers, circular sanders and other tools is ridiculous and guns should be treated no differently. Yes, we can find heated discussion in favor of this bit of nonsense in Newsvine archives as we can the other nonsensical anti-reform talking points.
Now, I have looked and I have yet to find a credible dictionary definition for "gun" that mentions it being a "tool". Most definitions I've seen describe a gun as:
a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise.
Yes, the dictionary describes the gun as a "weapon", not a "tool". Well, what is a weapon? Can we find "weapon" generally described as a tool in any reference?
...any device used with intent to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems.
Nope, no mention of the gun being a tool there either. A gun, like any weapon, is a device that is used to inflict damage to a target, including the incapacitation of a human being to the point of that human being's death. The gun, more specifically, is designed to execute the infliction of that damage quickly, with maximum efficiency at minimum cost.
For the sake of kicks and grins, however, let us humor our gun-humper friends and for a moment go with the argument that a gun is a tool. No one with a reasonable compliment of properly firing brain synapses can deny that "a tool for what" should be an important consideration for whether use of a product should or should not be regulated. A hammer is used to drive a nail. It CAN be used to injure or kill, but that is not what it is MADE to do. On the other hand, injuring, damaging, killing is EXACTLY what a gun is made to do. So if one insists on referring to a gun as a tool, intellectual honesty compels the admission that the gun is a tool of aggression, injury and incapacitation up to and including death.
So, at least in the name of intellectual honesty, can we disabuse ourselves of the idiotic notion that a gun is as innocuous as a hammer and thus should be treated no differently than a hammer from a regulatory standpoint? Can we consider that those who offer up such arguments are attempting to bend reality and fact toward their pre-established desire to buy any gun they want, from whoever they want, carry it at any time, leave it wherever they want and sell it to whoever they want with zero accountability? Can we treat such an assertion with all the contempt, disdain and derision normally reserved for such flatulent dumbphuckery?