The goal isn't to take away all guns.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011
The goal isn't to take away all guns.
123
Mon, 01-07-2013 - 11:48am

Despite the scare tactics so typical of the right - see health care - there is no desire to take away all guns amongst most on the left. That is how the right wants to define the debate, as all or nothing. It knows it wins in that case.

All we want is common sense, but listen to, see the howls and declarations of 'you won't take away my gun!'

Which position is actually rational and reasoned?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Tue, 02-12-2013 - 6:33pm

Looking at countries around the world, there are degrees of civility.  The US does not need civilians to heavily arm themselves.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Tue, 02-12-2013 - 6:49pm

"Maybe we should ban fertilizer"  talk about irrational arguments. 

Let's test out that logical fallacy.  Let's stop banning lead paint in products because acid rain is dangerous to human health too.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Tue, 02-12-2013 - 6:52pm

So, in order to have a free society we can't ban dangerous and deadly products?  

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Tue, 02-12-2013 - 6:55pm

Oh really xxxs, like the Congo?

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Tue, 02-12-2013 - 6:56pm

sorry double post 

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Tue, 02-12-2013 - 10:55pm

   Guns are perfectly safe.  So we also allow poisonious food in the US we allow food with hormones and additives that are banned by most of the advanced countries. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-gunther/would-you-like-extra-ract_b_2206643.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/11/russia-bans-beef-and-pork-imports-us/

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/dispute-over-drug-feed-limiting-us-meat-exports-174014

dragowoman

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Tue, 02-12-2013 - 11:12pm

  The Congo referance was Deenasdad:   But perhaps looking at what happens to unarmed people in many countries and the suffering they endure.  Millions of people wish they had the right and the means to defend themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KztkvfeyO80

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacon%27s_rebellion

  

dragowoman

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Wed, 02-13-2013 - 1:32am

Let's test out that logical fallacy.  Let's stop banning lead paint in products because acid rain is dangerous to human health too.

Was lead paint or acid rain used by psychos to kill masses of Americans?

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Wed, 02-13-2013 - 1:51am

So, in order to have a free society we can't ban dangerous and deadly products?

Like cars and bathtubs that kill exponentially more people each year than assault rifles?

As I said, your argument left logic standing by the side of the road long ago, and has devolved into a purely emotional rant.  That won't convince anyone.  It's already been shown time after time after time that banning "assault weapons" won't do a thing to prevent mass shootings, nor will "universal background checks," and that the same number of people could have been killed in any mass shooting if the shooter only used handguns with low-capacity clips.

So why keep pushing the same tired, old anti-gun arguments?  If lives, not guns, are your real concern, then why not start focusing on, and addressing, the real problems?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Wed, 02-13-2013 - 12:30pm

 

Jabberwocka

Pages