D
DArtagnan
Guest
Unfortunately, DArt, that's simply not the essence of the thing. That logic simply doesn't get through - because the people who fail to argue against it keep trying to ignore it over and over again. You choose to ignore the conditions and situations and responsibility revolving around the misuse of a tool by people with intent that falls outside the bounds of decent society. You choose to punish the millions of people that use those tools properly because you lack the willpower to address the real problem. It's all "needless dead" to you. You're entitled to that choice, but you're not entitled to force it on others because you lack the basic logic to make it a reasonable expectation.
Yes, people will have to do without guns to save lives. You should be proud to go that way - but people are selfish and ignorant, so I guess not.
I choose to focus on what's doable.
Debating alternatives is fine - but people are being killed while you cry about being "punished".
Once you figure out how to make a gun that can't kill the wrong people - I'll be more than happy to support your right to wield deadly arms because you get a kick out of it.
Until then, your insignificant right to own the means to kill people easily will have to be removed.
These rights were invented to protect people, not to kill them. Times were different and society has evolved. Let's try not to hold it back more than we have to, just because you don't mind innocent people dying. That's not a good reason.
There's no logic you can come up with that takes away the fact that you're clearly stating that your right to own a gun is more important to you than keeping more people alive.
That's what you're saying, end of story.