The argument that "bad people will do bad things no matter what laws there are" is often cited in debates about gun control, particularly in the wake of incidents like the New Orleans attack, where a gun wasn't even used. This incident showcases how individuals with malicious intent can find alternative means to cause harm, thus questioning the effectiveness of gun bans in preventing crime. Critics argue that if the motive is there, the method will be found, whether it's through guns, explosives, or, as seen in New Orleans, using vehicles as weapons.
Those advocating for gun bans often highlight that firearms make it easier for criminals to commit violent acts, focusing on the tool rather than the underlying intent. However, the New Orleans attack, where an electric vehicle (EV) was used, illustrates that the absence of guns does not eliminate the potential for harm. This raises the question: if we consider banning guns for their potential in crime, should we not also consider banning EVs or any other tools that could be weaponized?
The discussion then pivots to whether banning items based on their potential misuse is logical or feasible. EVs, like guns, are dual-use items; they serve a beneficial purpose but can be misused. Banning EVs because of one incident would be seen by many as an overreach, ignoring the broader context of their utility and safety record. Similarly, the call to ban guns might be seen as addressing symptoms rather than causes of crime, like mental health issues or societal discontent. This debate underscores the complexity of finding legislative solutions that target criminal intent rather than merely the tools of crime.
Why don't we ban EVs? Or knives? Or forks? Or baseball bats?
Discuss...