This is the the type of logic that plagues republicans and feeds to their irrational way of thinking. Can't even argue with this kind of thinking anymore.
It's not irrational, it's proving a point that you simply don't want to accept. Do guns hurt people? Yes. Does that mean we should ban them? No. Do cars hurt people? Yes. Does that mean we should ban them? No. There is a cost associated to any freedom or civil liberty, in America the people have decided that those freedoms and civil liberties are worth the cost. Cars are slightly different in that there isn't a constitutional amendment guaranteeing your right to own or drive a car so if you want to ban one of those two, that's the one you should focus on, you'll have a better chance of success.
Spoiler Generally Speaking Gun Control is about keeping guns out of the "wrong people's" hands while allowing the 'right people' to have them Since the definition of 'right and wrong people' changes over time and place and circumstances it makes it nearly impossible to properly legislate. Rocket River
There are lots of arms that are already banned. RPG's, for example. Do you accept ANY limitations on the right to bear arms? And this "X don't kill people; people kill people" argument can be used for nukes, drugs and so on. "Nukes don't kill people; people kill people. Crack doesn't kill people; people kill people." Etc.
Sure, there are some limitations and I'm fine with that. I'm not suggesting that people be able to go out to Wal-Mart and buy a tank or an RPG, but there's a middle ground between that and trying to ban all handguns or trying to ban rifles. Hell I even support the automatic weapons ban. There's common sense regulations and then there's just nonsensical BS. I've never had a problem with common sense regulations.
so we should ban guns because people kills themselves with them? what about rope, water, bridges, etc... or maybe we try and help them instead since the gun wasn't the problem, it was their mental health. so maybe... we should stop the root cause of terror too instead of just taking terrorists guns away and letting them keep the hate.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/ Rocket River It is what it is
Yeah when I want to go to the grocery or work I just ride my sawed off reverse and start firing, that's where the term riding shotgun came from. 2 things that are totally apples to apples in their intent of purposes.
Would it be better if we were talking about something like alcohol that doesn't really serve a positive purpose in society? Would that help you follow along? Alcohol causes around 88,000 deaths in the US alone every year, should we ban that to save people?
The difference being that the value we derive from cars (large improvement in economic prosperity) is arguably worth the trade-off in public safety (where we are continuing to improve all the time anyway), whereas the value we derive from guns (fantasies of staving off government oppression) is much harder to justify in my mind given the cost in public safety. Oligarchs from over 200 years ago decided the civil liberty of gun ownership was worth the cost and set up a system in which overwhelming political will would be needed to undo what they chose to do. The costs have since gone up, and the value of the civil liberty has gone down. I have a hard time believing that we the people (the ones still alive today and having to put up with it) would really choose this reality if we didn't have this decision from our forefathers to contend with.
I don't think it is feasible at this point to enact a ban on guns, nor am I entirely sure that would be the best solution. I would support extensive background checks and mandatory, thorough training.
Disarm criminals first.. then come talk to me. I'll still tell you to **** off but at least we'll see something productive come of it.
I accept that you don't understand the need for the right to bear arms, fortunately it's not up to you. Some might not understand the need for freedom of speech or the prohibition of the state quartering troops in your home, that's why they make it so difficult to remove those specific rights. They know that not everyone will get it. Again, would you support alcohol prohibition 2.0? What is the value we derive from drinking? it costs about 88K American lives a year yet I doubt you'd be for banning it. Anti-civil liberties people never really change, just their targets. People like you are no different than the short sighted prohibitionists of 100 years ago.
Definition of gun control? I guess you mean what kind of gun control do we want. We already have some gun control. I don't have any problems with people owning hand guns for personal protection or rifles for hunting. I do have a problem with people being allowed to own weapons that are designed to be used to kill large numbers of humans in a short period of time. Assault weapons designed for the battlefield should not be owned by private citizens. I also agree with extensive background checks.
All weapons were designed for the battlefield initially. It seems we've just forgotten that. You can kill large numbers of humans in a short period of time with an 1873 Winchester repeating rifle.....that's why they called it "The gun that won the west", do you ban that as well?
Should I report any suspicious individuals that has a garage full of grey goose and starts loading up on patrons at the grocery store?
Don't even walk that argument with them it is a waste of time. The 2nd amendment it there to allow the citizens of this country to protect and defend themselves from governments foreign or domestic. If, God forbid we should ever need to do so, having limited our own options will seem pretty silly. If you take away the 2nd amendment then sure, limiting the types of guns available to citizens makes perfect sense. The 2nd amendment is not about hunting or home defense.
It's not even that I disagree with limiting the types of guns available to citizens, it's just that a lot of the anti gun crowd sound like virgins trying to talk about sex when they try to talk about firearms. They are often WAY off base and if they were children it would be adorable but since they are probably adults, it's a bit sad.
