(February 20, 2016 at 11:58 am)Rhythm Wrote: As I said, liberties with fact and context..not wrong, because they aren't meant to be accurate, they're meant to be funny. Not -even- wrong, to borrow the phrase.
People don't actually have guns for home defense. Their use tells you, with better accuracy, what people have guns for... than what they say they have guns for on an NRA poll or internet convo. I don't have guns for home defense, but I have many guns, and my ownership of those guns is not predicate on a justification of home defense in any case, nor is the ownership of those who -do- have guns for self defense predicate on that justification.
Gun bans probably would be effective against mass shootings (they have been elsewhere)..but they wouldn't do anything to our gun problem..which is that people are committing suicide and getting murdered, while it would come at a great fundamental cost in liberty. It's an emotionally charged issue where one can appeal to a statistically insignificant "problem" as a means of painting their opposition in a corner. This is emotional blackmail, not sound policy making.
I agree with you, I do not support a gun ban because I do not think it fixes the problem. I have already stated in this thread that I think the way you fight crime and violence is by improving health, happiness, economic status, and the education of the people. Now of course his act does no encompass every aspect of the gun debate and there are good arguments for and against guns, but the parts he does touch on I agree with.
