Popping back in for a second.
Vampire -
You keep posting anecdotal evidence.
FirstAscent -
Getting shot by a gun, whether accident or a crime still results in injury or death. I personally and sincerely think you would have to actually be a victim of an accidental shooting before that concept would sink into your small brain (assuming you didn't get shot in the brain) to drive home the point that basing your flimsy and biased arguments on criminal shootings alone is not enough.
Since your reasoning has moved from intent of the object to accidental risk of the object, you might want to suggest a more comprehensive object banning policy.
Vampire -
You keep posting anecdotal evidence.
FirstAscent -
Accidents ≠ crime.
Getting shot by a gun, whether accident or a crime still results in injury or death. I personally and sincerely think you would have to actually be a victim of an accidental shooting before that concept would sink into your small brain (assuming you didn't get shot in the brain) to drive home the point that basing your flimsy and biased arguments on criminal shootings alone is not enough.
Since your reasoning has moved from intent of the object to accidental risk of the object, you might want to suggest a more comprehensive object banning policy.
Feel free to suggest items which don't have some other purpose than killing and which, when handled by children, can cause severe injury or death. For example, kitchen knives almost qualify, except they're useful for cooking, whereas guns are not. Cars? Too useful to get from A to B. Power drills? Useful for fabrication. Plastic bags? Useful for food storage. Last time I checked, guns don't work for cooking, transportation, fabrication or food storage.
Ok, so now you've moved on to restricting guns because of BOTH the risk of accident AND their purpose.
The risk of accident argument opens up a slippery slope to restricting other things.
The object intent argument is irrelevant to accidents, and gun laws aren't preventing crime.
You're working backwards from a conclusion.
You're kind of strange, precisely because of your fervent desire to incessantly argue against obvious things by using obscure logic and wordplay.
Quote
What part of the following do you not understand? If an object has great utility to everyday living vs. the chance of it being dangerous, then there should naturally be less restriction on its use precisely because of that.
Before, it was "a gun is the tool to kill". Now it's apparently daily utility versus chance of danger without any mention of intent, so please excuse my confusion in the face of flip-flopping.
You clearly have some mechanism in mind for balancing these two values fairly, so really I ought to finish the reading you assigned to me that solves the regulatory capture problem. That being said, you and I might not gain much utility from guns, but I'm loathe to impose my values on others without strong statistical evidence of its necessity.
Quote
EDIT: you may find some valid arguments to validate your case out there, but attempting to refute in particular what I've said here only makes you look like a desperate fool. Find another avenue and gain some respect.
I'll leave it to the reader to judge to which one of us that applies.
