Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Yeah, the alcohol comparison is only compelling to incredibly simple minded people. I think most normal human adults can accurately measure the difference in destruction potential between a handgun and a can of Pabst. It’s dishonest arguing to the point of coming off as satire, done by people who have no actual argument so they bring up mindless red herrings.
“This legislation doesn’t do enough so they shouldn’t do it!”
“You think GUNS are dangerous? Wait until I tell you about ALCOHOL!”
Just nonsense. Who finds these arguments compelling or thoughtful in any way? Anybody? If shooting guns was done as frequently and casually as drinking alcohol, we can logically assume the deaths and injuries from it would outrank alcohol by a mind warping margin. It’s not just about comparing which has the biggest overall impact on society, current state, it’s about the potential for damage measured against the benefit. We don’t talk about banning cars seriously, right? Because that would be ####ing stupid and we’re not ####ing stupid, even though cars are dangerous and cause plenty of deaths. I don’t see a lot of people advocating for being able to drive a tank down Deerfoot. Why not? Don’t you guys like freedom?
Guns should be banned until I can buy missiles and meth without government or legal intervention of any kind. Anyone against the free sale of missiles and the hardest drugs money can buy is a commie Liberal supporter and a Trudeau fanboy.
|
I tend to agree with you on the Meth argument. We could probably reduce gun violence with a legalize tax and treat illicit drug use program rather than banning more guns.
The other area people completely miss the point on guns is that they are used in suicide. You don’t ban guns to prevent mass shootings. You ban guns to reduce sucucides. This is how legal guns kill people.