Originally Posted by dteowner
I did read it. I find it pointless to simply tell you that you're all over the map and tremendously inconsistent—you get all fussy and you resist any attempt (whether backed by "common sense" or backed by a wall of documentation—as a side note, I find your clearly stated reliance on "common sense" in this thread ironic given your utter disdain when others use it) at people telling you how to think. Thus, the only real avenue to get you out of your mental bunker is to ask questions that (attempt to) lead you to the desired thoughts all by your little lonesome. If the thought ain't "DArt sense" then you're simply not going to accept it.
As for my question itself… you're a clear proponent of gun control and claim that guns have no real use beyond harming others and a high chance of harming yourself. You dismiss any argument about positive aspects of gun ownership because they don't fit into DArt Sense. OK, if that's the structure you're happy with, I'll roll with it. Now, let's look at tobacco smoke. You do not favor a ban of smoking, in spite of significant evidence that smoke definitely harms yourself and has a high chance of harming others. Let's not even drag in the alcohol argument at this time, although it would fit into my argument just fine— I'm a little pressed for time.
You're inconsistent. Worse, you're sniping at people for using common sense as it relates to guns while joyously reveling in common sense as it relates to smoke. If your logic is that tortured, the only real response is to question whether the logic is sound. I suppose it's up to you whether you're willing to do that. I won't even attempt to tell you what to think. Use your DArt sense for a bit.