FFS. Of course anti-gun positions are going to isolate guns as the problem. That’s like getting mad that people keep blaming alcohol for drunk driving related deaths. Sure, lots of other things play into it, but the only thing that remains the same in all DD related deaths is the alcohol.
If you can think of another factor that’s common across every single shooting other than guns, I’m sure anti-gun activists will be happy to take a swipe at it as well.
You must know how flawed your position is when you’re argument is that people shouldn’t blame guns for gun violence, like they didn’t play a part in it.
No u.
Everyone is just replying to you. Stop posting and the thread will fade away.
There’s potentially a very large social cost to banning guns, too. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure citizens can protect themselves against a tyrannical government. In the event such a thing comes to pass, not having guns could have dire consequences.
Funny that no such language actually appears in the Second Amendment isn’t it? A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Are you fucking stupid? In case you didn’t notice the US army is significantly better equipped than the Redcoats were. You think some rednecks with ARs are gonna stop a tyrannical government from rolling in with tanks and predator drones?
I’m willing to wager that you’re about the only one here who doesn’t understand the references, doesn’t see your abject logical fallacies, and doesn’t despair over your pathological intellectual dishonesty.
Oh, I’m sure a redneck with an IED will land an occassional kill, but things didn’t exactly work well for Afghanistan, did they?
Now, is a tyrannical US government successfully cracking down on its own citizens a good thing? No, of course not, and we should stop it. But the way to stop that from happening is to prevent tyrannical people from coming to power, and ensuring the system of government and its traditions are robust enough to resist a takeover (something Trump and others have done their best to erode). Not by waving ARs around and screaming about freedom.
So what? Tanks and predator drones didn’t do much good against the Taliban, did they? Put the US Army up against a guerrilla force of even moderate capability and I’m betting on the guerrillas every time.
What is unique to guns is that they are both unnecessary for a free and fulfilling existence, and have been successfully managed in dozens of countries similar to ours.
Other things we allow to continue do not share these properties, and we actually do put great effort into minimizing the deaths that result from them.
Thinking more on this, if those wingnuts want to hide out in caves and away from the rest of civilization, i.e. not their own homes and towns, they should go for it.
But somehow, one suspects the idea is that people will be able to stay in their comfortable homes in their comfortable towns and still put up an effective resistance against an organized military force by dint of their hodge-podge collection of personal arms. Instead of, you know, living out of caves and having to destroy the very infrastructure that enables their rather high standard of living (by global standards) just to try to keep up.
That’s kind of hilarious in a totally delusional self-owning sort of way.
I would ask if you were stupid again, but you already admitted that you are.
Tanks and predator drones did wonders against the Taliban. The US occupied the country for years. Yes, eventually the US left, because the US doesn’t really care about Afghanistan. Do you think a hypothetical tyrannical US is just going to leave, say, Florida, after a couple decades of low level insurgency? Texas? California? Of course not.
The US could have easily occupied Afghanistan in perpetuity, and there isn’t jack squat the Taliban could do about it. If we are talking about core American territory, there’s no chance a tyrannical government is just gonna give up and leave.
Maybe if you’re in American Samoa or something, you’d have a chance. But in any US state? Yeah, right.
Good luck with that. If there is a tyrannical government, it’s the gun advocates who will work to bring it about and enforce it. Any guns used against such a government will be laughingly ineffective.