"Gun crime" is the foundation of a
meaningless tautology.
Asserting that "gun crime" would be diminished by removing guns, is asserting the same kind of meaningless tautology that says getting rid of account ledgers would diminish the incidence of accounting fraud; the argument is specious, and it distracts from discussing a "violence problem"--that is not solvable by these gun-control laws you advocate.
When you deliberately create the special category of "gun crime" so that you can both include crimes that were not caused by guns; and exclude crimes caused by people (but without using guns), you tacitly admit that you're JUST FINE with all the criminal violence in the world... provided no gun was involved.
"Gun crime"...the rhetorical tautology that exposes anti-rights advocates for the callous human shit-birds that they are.
I'm not the one who brought up gun crime per se.
You're explicitly using that invalid tautology to support your position.
My main plank is there doesn't need to be a proliferation of guns in a modern society. Europe, Canada, New Zealand and Australia are examples of modern, free, functioning societies that show that you don't need guns in such a society.
The argument from (does not) need is invalid for OBVIOUS reasons. Failure number 2.
Now, I know you'll say you don't 'need' a gun, which is fine.
Of course. But I'm not about to say that I'll never need a gun.
More importantly though, I will never tell you that you don't need a gun... I'm certainly not so presumptively stupid to assert that you will NEVER need a gun.
You just want one, and as a 'free' person you should be allowed one.
I want one, because I (might) need one. Owning guns is my civil and constitutionally protected right.
At the end of the day no person is an island. You may think you should be allowed to do what you want when you want without consequences.
OBVIOUS straw-man. Failure number 3. You're just done.
At the end of the day, any functioning democracy has rules and regulations for a reason. Most of them come about because people believe a society will be better if such laws exist. Sometimes they make sense (laws against murder) sometimes not (prohibition).
Yet the beliefs of the majority are NOT immune from being entirely bullshit. That's why this country also has a 1st Amendment... because superstition is not "reasonable."
We have a constitution with a Bill of Rights to explicitly put our rights out of the reach of of votes.
I want to live in a society where I walk down the street knowing that somebody isn't carrying a firearm and decide that they've had enough of life and want to off people because they've had a bad day. And that is a problem in the US. Do other nations have such people? Sure. But nowhere to the extent of the US. This link about sums it up for me....
Well, its just OBVIOUS from the violent crime rate in these disarmed societies of yours, why you feel this way. OBVIOUSLY if you allowed your folks the kind of access to firearms that Americans enjoy, your sense of entitlement to violence (with guns added) would most certainly result in a blood bath rivalling every lurid Wild West Bloodbath scenario gun prohibitionists predict (but oddly never actually occur).
You make the mistake of equating the lethal quality (gun-death tautology) of American violence with more violence; we don't tolerate violence here as well as you might think... that's why starting it up it is more likely to lead to a lethal end. I might argue that we take violence far more seriously than these so-called "developed" nations that are so often used as comparisons. Punching the next guy for some kind of entertainment, or because he's wearing the colors of a rival's fancy kickball team just doesn't fly here. And those who believe they are so entitled, are often the stronger and more aggressive amongst us--guns remove ALL of their advantages over the weak. I'm very good with that arrangement.
You see, it's the romanticised notion of violence--INCLUDING the romanticised notions of those who think some beatings are just an expression of playfulness--that is problematic. Disarming the victim pool for those sociopaths is both intellectually and morally invalid.
Yeah. My point stands: "Gun crime"...the rhetorical tautology that exposes anti-rights advocates for the callous human shit-birds that they are.
