Quote:
Originally Posted by aowen
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I didn't prove shit, and you most certainly didn't. I have just demonstrated how ineffective a law is without a concerted effort. Guns would be harder to get in Chicago if Illinois and neighboring states actually banned hand guns as well. Then if a person wanted a gun, they'd really have to fucking want it because they'd have a hell of a road trip on their hands to go get one. In fact, if they were banned nationally, which is what is proposed, they'd have some smuggling to do. Also, more enforcement would be necessary, rather than just confiscating guns after they have been used to commit crimes. Asserting that Chicago is a microcosm for what America would be with bans is a stupid argument.
|
Okay, so we're revoking a fundamental right for all 48 contiguous states and ramping up border security to prevent weapons smuggling. We're then substantially increasing enforcement (and presumably infringing upon privacy) to make sure people don't have guns.
Just remind me quickly: why are we doing this? What is the impetus for granting the government such a massive windfall of power while preventing law-abiding citizens from owning tools uniquely capable of providing self-defense?
I won't even get into the argument about whether banning guns would actually have the desired effect. Let's pretend it does. Let's pretend we're at 0 gun deaths a year after banning firearms. You're going to revoke a fundamental right for 300,000,000 based on 15,000 deaths a year? You're going to quite literally eliminate the possibility for entire populations of people to defend themselves because people kill other people with guns?
Seems pretty questionable to me. And why stop there? Heart disease kills 2.5 million Americans a year. Should we not ban foods with saturated fat? And soda? Do you know how many lives could be saved if the government just set a mandatory nutritional plan for the country? Literally millions per year. Alcohol and cigarettes would be long gone, too. Those are exponentially more dangerous than guns.
I assume you're not on board with all of that. I wonder why. If your argument is the human cost, then why not take every measure to preserve human life? Why get excited about a relatively minor cause of death, from a population view, when other bans could be far more effective at saving lives?
09-23-2013, 09:51 PM
Linear Mode
