Nonsensical argument, addressed numerous times in this thread. Guns are primarily designed for killing people, cars and crobars aren't. Furthermore, carrying a crowbar around as an offensive weapon is already outlawed.
Knives, then?
And even though knives of a certain size are "outlawed", it does not stop criminals from carrying those sizes of knives. Kinda telling as for the whole idea of banning firearms, doesn't it?
Furthermore, are you really going to convince me that all guns are made for the sole purpose of killing someone? Then what are target range pistols made for?
And knives over a certain size ARE meant for dealing damage, or at the least are meant as a cutting tool.
Why have a gun if you don't think you'll use it?
Been addressed several times in this thread. Do I really need to rehash the same point over and over again?
1) I take firearms to shooting ranges, and find that rather fun personally.
2) When it DOES come up, it matters. A LOT. I don't know how much your life or the lives of your family are worth, but I do not put a price on mine.
3) Hunting. I don't hunt, but some others do. And a hunting rifle is just as capable of killing (in fact, MORE capable of killing) than a pistol.
You can't have it both ways. Either the gun is dangerous enough to make it a better weapon for your protection than any other, or it isn't.
Of course it's dangerous. But what's more dangerous isn't the firearm, but in how the person that has it uses it. And I like to think that the majority of people in society are good people, and that the minority are the criminals. But that minority has a chance of doing harm to me and the other good people.
If it wasn't, you wouldn't need to carry it in the first place. You're arguing in circles.
I would only be arguing in circles if my argument was, "Guns aren't dangerous!" I don't believe I ever argued that. Would you quote me if I did?
The fact is, there are always going to be somethign that is "more dangerous" than unarmed fighting. I do not thinking that banning all of those items from the use of every person is going to solve any problems.
True. How is that relevant to whether banning guns makes people safer?
Because the people that get hurt from firearms stand just as significant a chance from suffering from non-gun violence. If a man comes up to rape a woman while threatening her with a firearm, he could be just as likely to come up and threaten her with a knife. Name me one thing that can't be done with another weapon that we're under threat of with firearms?
Every man for himself is a really unpleasant philosophy in my humble opinion.
Just remember, if you were my neighbor I'd be taking care of YOUR family if a criminal decided to attack you. So no, that isn't an "every man for himself" philosophy, as that implies that I am not willing to help others.
I just have yet to be shown that banning firearms is a good answer to the problems that you propose. If anything, crimes will spike, not lower. I'm also dubious that government regulations are the only answers to crimes. But it seems that everyone runs to the government as soon as they perceive a problem...
It hardly makes for a civil society, or a nice world to live in.
Civility has to do with attitude and cultural values, not with the tools with which you have access to. There were far more "uncivil" societies before firearms ever went into mass production, or were even developed.
In fact, I'll repeat this again: Those that oppose newer weapons do not pose a civil society, but instead a return to rule by brute strength, where the stronger take from the weak. With firearms, a 5'3" woman actually has a chance to defend herself against a 6'3" rapist.
