Last edited by TITAN308; 2017-10-16 at 02:16 PM.
Thats not the point being argued. The point being argued is if you have more of something you will have more issues dealing with it. If you allow alcohol use, you will have more DUI, if you have more "hard" drug use, you will have more overdoses. If you have more pools you will have more drownings. If you allow more cars on the roads, you will have more accidents. Sooooo following the same logic, if you allow more firearms ownership, you will have more firearm deaths.
Using the term "attack" in this manner when regarding guns because its emotionally driven.
No company in the USA markets guns to the public "buy our product so you can attack people". None.
They are sold as defensive products. Period.
You are trying to use the term "attack" out of context and its bullshit. ie: you are the one being dishonest.
Last edited by TITAN308; 2017-10-16 at 02:32 PM.
Well, now we get into the realm of what the 2nd Amendment is about. Who should be able to buy guns? What gun laws can we pass that will result in a decrease of deaths? Why dont we enforce harsher sentences when guns are used in crimes? etc...etc...
It isnt that anyone is against it, it is how do you balance those laws without denying law abiding people their rights? Lets also be fair here, this shit only comes up when a dozen innocent people are killed at an event. Usually by guns legally purchased. Nobody says a word when its Pokey on a street corner slinging crack shooting someone that ripped him on a drug deal. The later results in more deaths then the former.
Of course not, they want to sell guns. You are defending their market ploy, that is all that there is too this. You are the one who is trying to put this out off context with your defensive hur dur, while it is obvious that guns are made to attack something, not to defend something. You defend something by attacking it, that doesn't make it any less of an attack.