You keep saying there is a cost to gun ownership, but you are never willing to address the costs of your own plan which with then be an additional burden on top of existing burdens. Just because your plan is completely logically flawed doesn't mean you can just point back at me and keep crying about the costs (which you don't pay BTW). Everyone who lives within the US or even visits pays taxes, so WE ALL PAY THE COST. You can jump up and down and cry that it is not true, but if the burden is put upon the tax payer (which it is), then we all pay for it, just like I pay to fund schools even though I have no children. We all enjoy certain liberties here which we all collectively pay for.
You're twisting so many things around, it's hard to know to where to start.
You falsely believe that "less guns" in society would somehow be socially costly. I showed that to be incorrect a couple of pages back, linking information that gun suicides far outnumber gun murders in the US. The article explains how there could be a lot less deaths in society if "law abiding citizens" didn't have so many guns lying around and within easy reach. They linked it to research proving that a lot of suicides are opportunistic, not premeditated, and that simple measures in other areas in society successfully reduced the amount of deaths. As examples, they talked about suicide-prevention fences on a bridge, which lo-and-behold, reduced the total suicide rate in the entire town despite there being other bridges. And when coal ovens were upgraded, the same thing happened: less opportunity = less death.
You falsely believe that taxing firearms will some how reduce the availability of firearms, but you have no problem skipping over that step and just claiming it is a fact taxes will reduce the prevalence of firearms.
Because there are so many MORE gun suicides than gun murders to start with, there would have to be a large spike in the murders to compensate for a slight decrease in the suicide rate. And that won't happen either because most gun murders ALSO occur at home, and most likely by a family member or spouse. Not home invasions.
You can site whatever cherry picked stats you like, it doesn't change the fact that your plan is unenforceable therefore worse than useless.
A spike in home invasions wouldn't make sense either. If it's not a relative or friend, then it's a stranger, and they most likely won't know if there's a gun in the house or not, or whether it's safely locked up or not. If there's a gun at home, it's useless all safely locked up. And if it's not locked up, then your family is a bigger risk to you in the first place.
There's no need to bring Mexican cartels into it, or arming the poor. The simple fact is that after adding up the biggest factors, having guns at home puts you at more risk of dying than not having guns at home.
Who said every gun owner has a family at home, or that their family is untrained in firearm safety? Again it boils down to you pointing out problems with no suitable or effective solution.
Having a pool at home automatically increases your risk of drowning. Having electricity in your home automatically increases your risk of fire or electrocution. Using a ladder automatically increases your risk of falling and being injured. Most injuries are in the home as well, should we just start taxing the shit out of all these things because they aren't needed in the survivalist sense? You are used to living in a country where they dictate to their subjects what they will do. Here, public support of laws are required otherwise they either aren't passed, aren't enforced, or are completely ignored. I know that is hard for some one who has been trained to be obedient and subservient their whole life to understand, but this is not just about guns or safety, it is about
self determination, something which has little value in monarchies like where you live.
Suddenly all of your points rely on your supposed observations of me as a person. That is called an ad hominem attack, which is a fallacy and not considered an actual form of debate. Also I don't know where you get off labeling me an anarcho-capitalist libertarian just because I disagree with you. What the fuck makes you think you know me? Oh thats right, your deeply engrained confirmation bias does, because anyone who disagrees with your totally righteous plans must be anarcho-capitalist.
LOL
Questioning your character is completely relevant in a discussion about social concerns. Like you're so righteous to disguise your selfish aims (untouchable gun rights so you can defend yourself against the evil government) as caring about the poor and wanting everyone armed so that they can supposedly defend themselves against each other. You're SO gun crazy that you even managed to fake some social empathy.
What does my character have to do with the facts? I brought up things about your country and perception because as a direct result of your circumstances you are completely ignorant of the huge differences between your society and mine, and that creates huge rifts of bias you are unwilling to acknowledge. My criticisms are focused on the debate, your personal attacks are focused on your existing bias against myself as a person in which you apply labels to me without any kind of basis but your existing bias. Real debates do not include personal attacks. You have relied upon fallacy after fallacy to try to "win" this debate, and all you have done is buried yourself in a pile of bullshit ever deeper.
You are 55 times more likely to die at the hands of police than terrorists in the US, but we have no reason to fear our government right? The poor are more often victims of crimes, but that is just fake empathy to you. The elderly can't physically defend themselves without firearms, but that is again just fake empathy right? The same thing goes with the rape and assault of women. I wonder why there are more women raped per capita in Australia than in the US...
You are right tho, those are all just fake empathy, those people wont REALLY have to suffer, it is all just a "red herring" like mental health, and even if they do have to suffer, it is worth it so you can feel like you did something with your social experiment right? My favorite kind of people are the ones who are generous and caring at the expense of some one else. It just so much easier when you just make others sacrifice for your ideals! It just makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside with absolutely no personal sacrifices, just like socialism!
I am not going around demanding everyone own a gun, but gun control cultists have no problem telling together people they shouldn't own one, even if it is by force, force by the way that if utilized in this country would in fact result in civil war. Good plan dipshit! That ought to save a lot of lives!
