This is a fair, lucid and excellent argument. I appreciate this.
Your indignation would be far more interesting to me if it weren’t covered in crap. You tried to obfuscate the discussion by dragging in non-sequitors, and then got butt-hurt when you got called out on it.
Don’t want to get shot down? Don’t take Snoopy’s doghouse-Sopwith-camel into the No-Fly Zone.
I’m still waiting for those left-wing terrorism incidents. I haven’t freaked out about anything today yet.
If guns were outlawed, then there would be by definition no responsible legal owners. Everyone who had a gun would be a criminal. But you seem to be working with some definition of “criminal” other than “someone who commits crimes”, because you seem to feel it would be reasonable for people to commit* that *particular crime. So, if it isn’t a person’s actions that makes them a criminal, what is it? Why is it that some people who own guns illegally are “criminals” and others “responsible legal owners”? I’m finding it hard to imagine a plausible answer that doesn’t, in your oh so snowflakey phrase, “reach for a racial narrative”.
Set aside for the moment the legality of owning a gun in the first place, and ask if someone has ever used a gun as a tool in the furtherance of a crime: murder; attempted murder; assault and battery; armed robbery; terroristic threats; vandalism; poaching. These do somehow seem morally and ethically different from a mere scofflaw, unless one is so hoplophobic as to define the mere possession of a firearm as “depraved indifference” to the well-being of others. “No excuses, The Law is The Law” as an excuse for demanding unquestioning compliance to the dictates of government has long been recognized as a morally bankrupt stance.
OK, maybe the righties do have more guns, but the left knows how to build bombs that work.
I guess you’ve forgotten all the people slaughtered by Antifa and Hillary during the Bowling Green massacre
Forget it. Don’t hold your breath. That asshole won’t be coming back with any REAL evidence or cites.