Are you really able to re-read what you just wrote and miss the fundamental illogic in it?
EDIT: At the risk of wasting my time I'll be a touch more helpful.
1. "This happened in Canada where gun control has been around forever and yet this still occurs." Yes. Far, far more rarely.
2. "There will always be crimes of passion". This does not mean that some regulations on guns would not be effective in reducing gun deaths - particularly when 2/3 of those gun deaths are suicides. What those regulations should be in the U.S. context is of course a larger debate and I'm at least somewhat agnostic.
3. "People get killed with knives in Asia". Terrible news. That sounds like a separate issue in Chinese society that should be addressed on its own merits. It, again, has no bearing on the issue of gun control in the USA.
4. "Mental health is what we should really be focusing on". Sure, I'm open to ideas in this vein, just as I'm open to specific gun regulation proposals. I suspect that both categories of response would be effective to some degree. It's not a matter of waving a magic wand in one direction or the other.
5. "When your first thought is that your arguments might be damaged" ... I don't have "arguments". I don't have some sort of quiver of dogmatic positions to fire at people on this issue. I am really not particularly engaged on gun control. I am, however, unaffected by any real emotional attachment to this issue and thus able to employ some basic common sense.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 01-22-2016 at 09:52 PM.
|