I don't accept this. It's not so much about the intention as it is about the legitimacy of their function. Cars transport us from A to B; guns defend us. Both functions can be abused and both can cause unintended deaths, but it can be argued that their legitimate uses justify their existence.
If you look at it from a standpoint of basic human rights, in that we recognize an individual's inherent moral worth and their right to not be robbed or raped, then we can conclude that violence is sometimes legitimate. We appeal to our capacity to reason in order to recognize and uphold these rights, but that capacity is irreparably damaged in some individuals, and so the use of force is justified in self-defense.
In realizing that the world is not a utopia, and that the only realistic way for the hypothetical woman in, say, South Africa to protect herself from being raped and murdered is to arm herself with a weapon, I struggle to accept the idea of delegating the monopoly on violence solely to the state, and I can't think of anything more unpalatable than to argue that poor people should 'just move' to somewhere safer.
The point about trade-offs should not be so flippantly dismissed, in my opinion. It is worthy of serious thought.
Guns are certainly not intended to defend, that is anthropomophizing guns which you didnt do with the cars, false equivalence. Guns are for neither offense or defense- in fact its non-sensical to state they are soley for defense as you cannot have defense without offense, the terms inhere in one another, offense haunts defense as it were. Guns are weapons- both offense and defense, they are violent instruments by the very definition.
The use of force is justified in many instances, there is no peace without violence nor the inverse, however, the idea that guns are needed in the manner in which they are currently manifested in the states is not in line with that. There is obviously a spectrum here.
If guns were ensuring safety, surely the crimes rates would reflect this? that would be one variable.
There is a point where saturation occurs and instead of providing safety they produce the opposite. Look at capitalism- it is a method for wealth accumulation however, unchecked capitalism turns into extractivism that removes resources from the environment and collects that "wealth" in the hands of the few while conditions for the lower classes continues to deteriorate- its the inherent design of capitalism. Guns do the same thing and I think the stats bare this out quite clearly.
The other issue with your rape scenario is that the weapon is meant to level the playing field- ie the man is no longer stronger than the woman per se- however, if the man has the gun also, this levels that out and then rape becomes subject to opportunity and chance. The woman would have to be hypervigilant, always ready etc...
I don't deny some form of defense is warranted I just think free and unfettered access is culminating in some dangerous situations. What is to stop a lunatic right winger from retaliating now? shouldn't law enforcement be up to the police?
Nothing is perfect so and this is a complex system so the results should be the dictate.
