Thread: Feinsteins Weapons Ban Dead

Originally Posted by Madmax (Grape)

Possibly, assuming the person is capable of assembling a bomb or that the other is interested in legally obtaining a weapon. But why bother when they are so easily obtainable other-than-legally.



My statement directly above might seem odd if you still think I am for banning guns. But, again, I am not. As I stated,



Basically, I think its possible to argue against banning guns without resorting to ridiculous comparisons (like directly stating that a gun and rock are no different when used for nefarious purposes, to bring the conversation full circle). Because I think it makes the side using that argument seem(stress on the word seem) oblivious to the reality of how guns are a uniquely powerful force multiplier.

That was my only point, my apologies if I didn't make that clear. I hope it is now.

That's a fair assessment. I was only asking to restate your opinion, because I thought I had adequately offered a counter proposal in my previous comment, not suggest your point was moot. When you said "I missed the point", I needed further explanation.

To your point made above, yes guns are a force multiplier. That's the point of them. They aren't more lethal, or dangerous than anything else, they are simply more efficient. Which is something you pointed out. But the point I'm trying to make is that the tool used to kill someone is irrelevant when the motive is to kill in the first place. If someone were to enter a school and bash the heads of 10 children in during the time it takes the police to respond, as opposed to the 30 they would have killed with a gun, still leaves 10 children dead with crushed craniums. We didn't prevent murder at all. The point should be to prevent murder altogether, not be content with the amount killed. Banning guns, as others here have suggested, won't put a dent in school shootings any more than making pot illegal takes it out of the hands of the average college kid. We tried it with alcohol and we failed miserably at it. We can't keep drugs out of the hands of anyone, nor can we keep prostitution off the streets either.

So really all anyone does with anti gun laws is to take them out of the hands of the people who would never use them in the first place as many have described, and in doing so, are in fact infringing on our stated rights to begin with. And to what end?

Originally Posted by N-Ur-Face

Real mature. What was that about showing age not long ago?

You just said this [topic] is not an argument because there are not emotions involved, but then tell me to not be upset?

You contradicted yourself sir.

By your definition, this entire [topic] is an argument, driven by the emotion of the gun holders.

Huh? Are you drunk?

I'm not arguing with you. I'm not upset. How's that?