i should've made a better argument but ehhhnngnnnnh
First of all, the "take away the guns" method is a matter of averting disasters via prevention methods.
Your implication that the same logic must apply for "punishing murderers" is flawed, because that deals with what you do once the crime has been committed, not how to prevent it in the first place.
Okay, I guess this is a fair point.
Maybe there's something wrong with this point, but I'm not looking into it further for now.
The logic behind "banning guns" is to prevent gun-related crimes by limiting access to firearms in the hopes that people with harmful intentions won't shoot up places, but the critical flaw behind that kind of law is the fact that black markets will always exist and continue to offer weapons, and the people with truly harmful intentions will seek them out, and go to rampage on populations of unarmed law-abiding citizens.
Okay, but... by your logic, why ban anything to prevent something? Your argument boils down to "There's this tiny percentage of people that will still get the banned item anyway, so don't ban it".
If law-abiding citizens are armed, then any attempted assault by a madman with a gun is easily extinguished by other armed citizens.
Yeah, but then anyone can turn on anyone else. It's a double-edged sword.
Arguing from anecdote is probably not the best choice here, but nobody I've seen carries their gun with them (excluding police officers and such), they usually keep it in the car or something, offering no extra protection.
Actually, if you kept guns in your house, if someone came in and shot you, you would have no time to reach your gun unless it was literally right there beside you. But most people don't leave their guns out in the open, they put them in cabinets and drawers.
Laws that ban dangerous and addictive substances and regulate useful prescription drugs are good because they prepare society against potential drug-related disasters.
"But there will always be people that get drugs, so you shouldn't ban them".
Laws that permit average citizens to arm themselves are good because they prepare society and families against potential gun-related disasters.
With many gun laws, families that want nothing to do with gun-related crime are unable to sufficiently protect themselves.
There are other methods of defense besides guns. And guns provide a larger distance for someone to kill, so being limited to melee weapons would help those being attacked.
Even then, if everyone has guns, it makes it that much easier to just turn around and kill someone.
