Many gun control advocates argue that we need handgun bans in order to prevent crime. Empirical evidence collected from cities that have handgun bans (such as Chicago and D.C.) flatly disprove that idea. It appears that a hand ban, rather than a handgun ban, might better prevent crime. Allow me to explain:
Criminals use their hands in 99.99% of the crimes they commit. Be they vehicle related murders, stabbings, home invasions, or robberies, all of these crimes require hands. Without hands, criminals could not commit their crimes. Therefore, we as a society should all give up our right to have hands, in the interest of safety for everyone.
A hand ban may sound unreasonable, unfair, and unworkable at first, but handgun ban advocates should have no problem accepting a hand ban, since it is based upon the same reasoning that they use for handgun bans:
- Like handgun bans, a hand ban would target everyone, whether or not that particular person has done anything wrong.
- Like handgun bans, a hand ban law would be ignored by the criminals but obeyed by the law abiding citizens, putting the now-handless law abiding citizens at a disadvantage.
- Like handgun bans, a hand ban would infringe upon the basic rights of the citizens.
For those who could not tell, I’m not seriously suggesting that all citizens should be forced to have their hands removed. Rather, I’m drawing a parallel between handgun bans and another ridiculous (and hypothetical) restriction, namely hand bans.