It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: butcherguy
I think that reveals a whole other problem.
Even if you like guns... Well, water is good, is it not?
Too much water, everyone drowns.
But are they a "certain type of gun used exclusively for killing people? " That's what all the fuss is about, isn't it?
I have asked before for an example of a gun that is designed exclusively for killing people.
Do you have an example?
originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
You have too many guns.
If there are more guns than people, I don't care what you think. That's too many guns.
Perhaps he wants to regulate handguns, and worded it in an incorrect manner.
Perhaps it's a good thing you aren't in charge.
i honestly dont care if someone doesnt get to hunt is it saves the lives of kids and innocent people. the banning high capacity mags is a sacrifice im willing to make, wouldnt you agree?
if your whole point is to be a contrarian and not to propose any solutions to the mass murderer problem, i dont see the point in our discussion.
what i care is about making it harder for mass murders to obtain enough or certain weapons that allow them to kill a large number of people.
originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: DBCowboy
I made an edit you might have missed. My apologies.
Then, in your mind, is one person free to take another's freedoms?
After all, you support freedom.
It is somewhat of a paradox, I admit.
i care that potential mass murderers dont have easy access to weapons that can kill dozens of people easily, because i could be a victim and i want there to be less casualties in mass killings.
originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: butcherguy
of course. why is that even a question?
originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: butcherguy
thats really dumb im sorry but mass murderers and accidentally drowning are not even in the same ballpark. its not even in the same planet. and to add, its an equivocation fallacy. pools are just as dangerous and guns, therefore guns aren't that dangerous. its just a failure in logic.
what about homicides? what if only one person dies from an atomic blast ever, does that mean atomic bombs are less dangerous than pools? its just, such a weak argument.