Quote:
Originally Posted by Autotune
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
If that is not what you meant, then perhaps you should try to convey that information in a way that it does not state what you do not mean.
I also carry every where at all times. I choose not to visit places where I can't carry and the only places I visit that I don't carry are places that it isn't required (military bases, etc.)
You giving up your gun/s will never get the guns out of hands of other people. If you think this is even possible, you're delusional.
|
I didn't state anything I didn't mean, nor did I imply what you inferred. 9/10 dentists agree, you suck at reading.
You also don't carry 'everywhere at all times'. You can't carry on planes, you can't carry at school, and I'd assume you didn't reject flight or education out of sheer paranoia. But for the sake of discussion, I'll assume you actually carry guns everywhere it's legal. You'd still be fucked in two of the past three spree shootings in the US.
Here's the part you're not grasping: if someone has a gun and wants to shoot you, he's pretty much going to shoot you. The scenarios in which having a gun is going to actually help you defend yourself are exceptions to overwhelming odds against. Even still, 50% of Americans own guns. That means that, out of fear of an exceptionally uncommon circumstance, you've got nearly 100 million armed civilians. That's a lot of idiots with killing machines.
And obviously giving up my guns isn't going to make other people give up their guns. The point is that I'd be in favor of legislation that would result in significantly fewer total gun owners, even if that meant I couldn't own guns myself. Most of these mass murderers aren't people who have had guns lying around for ages. They're people that go nuts and buy stockpiles of weaponry over the course of a few months prior to the shootings. If they couldn't do that, there likely wouldn't be nearly as many mass shootings.