The great everyone carry a gun defense. If everyone carries a gun 24/7, how many accidental discharge are we going to have in a year?
Plenty of countries do just fine with no guns, but guess what, they still have cars for transporting people around.
You are missing the point of what I said so I will switch it to knives to make it clearer. You don't want everyone to have guns because the number of accidental discharges would go up. Would you want everyone to have knives? The number of accidentally stabbing oneself would go up. Do you want everyone to have cars? The number of fatal car accidents would go up.
Knives and guns have plenty of useful purpose, as do cars. Guns only have useful purpose in extreme situations for most people in this country. I cannot go to work easily without my car, I cannot cut meat without my knife, but I have gone decades without ever touching a gun.
Why does the amount of usage of an item matter? Also how much does an item need to be used for you to think it would be acceptable for everyone to use it? Once a day? Once a week? I use my chainsaw about once every 5-10 years? Does my chainsaw pass the test?
Your problem is the inability to grasp scope. The damage to society from guns swamps its benefits and it is made for one purpose, to kill. Not so with a knife. Further, the argument that knives are dangerous and should be regulated has ZERO impact on whether or not we should regulate guns. ZERO. The first being true or false has no effect on the evaluation of gun regulation. Human sacrifice kills people and has been outlawed. Well, knives kill people too so either we should regulate both equally or neither? See how silly your position is in practice? And I'm ok with gun ownership, but acting as if no regulation can be good is just dumb. Waiting periods and background checks have already proven able to save lives. No, they don't solve the problem, especially with no uniformity (the precise reason federal action is necessary). Stop signs and red lights don't stop all accidents on cross streets, but they do reduce them drastically. Gun regulation won't stop all gun violence, but it will reduce it.
Don't agree. Owning a gun has great benefits. Ask someone who has protected their family with one. You can't uninvent guns so your comment is useless to begin with. I never said they should be treated the same. I asked another poster why his gun argument doesn't apply to knives or cars (just a heads up, I don't think cars should be treated like guns either).
I blame talk radio and the death of news. Maybe I'm not old enough but I just don't remember people being this intellectually dishonest in the 80's. Its like an industry now.
Ask a family that had a member killed by their own gun, or had someone killed from an accident, either discharge or mistaken identity. As for uninventing guns, that comment makes no sense. Please clarify. Yes, because the scope of the damage is different. Hence, guns are different from cars and from knives. Pretty simple.
Yeah, it really sucks. I'm always unsure though - are they being intellectually dishonest, or are they just genuinely dumb? I suppose there might be other possibilities, but really I think it has to be one or the other.
You contend that the damages of guns out weighs the benefits to which I say: a) You are wrong b) 'who cares?'. they exist. you can't uninvent them. I don't even think you know what the argument made by the other poster was..... You didn't address it. Saying 'they are different' is not an argument. So are Glocks and Berettas; can we treat them the same? I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think well if they attack one personally it means they have not a single political argument left. - Margaret Thatcher Keep trying to attack the messenger CometsWin. Your 'you are stupid' arguments are very compelling. Great for discussion.
I don't know if you're stupid but a high number of your posts in this thread certainly are and that's not my fault. Maybe they're so stupid that you don't know where to start?
I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think well if they attack one personally it means they have not a single political argument left. - Margaret Thatcher Still have not addressed or made an argument. You have provided neither debate or discussion; just name calling.
I made the argument that your posts are stupid. I'm not the only one who has posted as much. You have an inability to grasp the difference between a car, a knife, and a gun as well as how they're used, what they're intended uses are, and their relative effects on society. You're repeating some talk radio bull**** and I'm calling you out for it. Anyway, you sound like you're full of cheer so go forth and be happy young man! Revel in your ignorant bliss!
An argument would to be say why my post is stupid. I asked why that difference was relevant to pirc1's argument, so clearly I recognize there is a difference. I even stated so a few posts up.
