We both know that your continued harping on this particular point is asinine. In order for there to truly be a double standard, I would have to have applied something similar to someone else. Please prove I did so, because we both know that I haven’t called for your personal qualifications on anything. Bottom line, you insisted that I answer a question that you and I both know is not empirically verifiable. You intentionally did so knowing that whatever answer I might give you could simply dismiss by saying “I don’t believe you.” I gave you my personal evidence, and you immediately dismissed it, as I assumed you would.This is poor debate at it’s core, and this is why I don’t give a rat’s tookus if you believe me or not. Let's just drop this particular point, because it's only making you look ridiculous.
No, YOU’RE oversimplifying the issue. You claim that there are much better ways to control guns, you just have no idea what they are and the ONLY example you’ve given involves a complete change of system of government. Furthermore, Somalia and Mexico are both atrocious examples that prove my point even further. You think that those two countries are examples of what happens without gun control? :rofl: The only people that have the easy access to guns in Somalia and Mexico are the lawless individuals, and they use their force monopoly to inflict terror upon the rest of the population, who are not similarly armed. Why do you think cartel members are willing to shoot up birthday parties without fear of reprisal or Somali pirates lock down entire coastal villages? Your premise is absolutely ridiculous and your argument is foundering more rapidly by the second.
As I showed you in the other thread, Germany may have enacted gun control laws, but they are clearly unable to enforce them. They know where 20% of the guns in their country are, with over 15 million firearms unaccounted for. How is that control working out for them again?
Again, you’re not advocating any policy changes because you have no idea how to fix the problem through legislation here in this country. (There ISN'T a way to legislate personal safety from crime.) You have no alternatives, and as you’ve personally stated you are simply resistant to the idea that my premise might be correct and that the most effective guarantee to personal safety is a properly armed and educated populace. Making guns harder to legally obtain is a direct threat to the safety of those who will actually go through the legal process to get them. It has no, I repeat, NO impact on the people who care nothing for the law, and they are the ones you should be worried about.
I don’t care where you’re from and I don’t care that you say you own a gun. That’s like the person who uses the “Well, I have a black friend” argument in an attempt to prove that they are not a racist. Neither of your statements are relevant to the discussion at hand. You JUST ADMITTED the point I’ve been trying to get through to you:
Thank you.
One final point, I’m not anti-gun control, I’m anti-ineffective gun control. If you could prove to me that you have a way to keep criminals from getting their hands on weapons or harming the populace, if you could guarantee me the same safety without a firearm that I currently have with one, I would turn in my guns in a heartbeat and sleep safely and peacefully with the decision. The problem is that we live in an imperfect world and you can never guarantee my safety. I am responsible for protecting me and my own. THAT is why it should not be harder for people to legally obtain firearms.