Respect Mr FB for trying to frame a reasonable argument, but failing on several counts.
Let's look at a few:
The more gun control the more the violence.
Whoa, stop right there. Can you see now what a nonsensical statement that is?
Maybe you meant "gun-related deaths" instead of "violence" because as it stands the statement implies that gun regulation actually makes people become more
violent, which is patently absurd.
Even allowing for your poor framing, can you seriously be saying that criminal background checks, waiting periods, mental health checks, registration etc. actually endanger us more by their presence than their absence and you would abolish all that regulation? Because if you're not saying that then your statement would be wrong even by your own standards.
There are hundreds upon hundreds of sociological studies and reams of data to support the antithesis of your statement.
And probably hundreds to the contrary. Unless you present them for evaluation you can't rely on them for argument.
Switzerland for example is a fairly peaceful place,
.....etc.
But the Swiss have MASSIVE regulation - a private citizen can't even own ammo. It flat contradicts your central argument. Proportionally to all crime and suicide they also have a higher gun component than neighbouring countries, which kinda indicates that without the guns they'd be even safer.
After all, criminals are.......well, they're criminals. They don't behave to the laws. (and most of these highly publicized shootings that the media loves to feed us involve guns NOT covered by any law or PROPOSED LAW)
You're repeating the earlier and much-corrected error that high-profile killings and criminal behaviour are somehow connected. They are not.
And, honestly, you would rather the media didn't highlight these massacres? Isn't there a switch on your tv?
However I prefer not to argue against the anti-gun crowd merely with facts
rofl
I'm still waiting for a rational man to explain to me why he has the right to initiate forceupon my person in an effort to further his anti-gun schemes and anyone that thinks they have the right to arrogate to the state the authority to seize, regulate, stop purchase of, or restrict our gun ownership should state WHY and HOW and moreover admit that he is using another set of GUNS to accomplish his goals.
What about MY right to enjoy life, which any random miscreant could end with a firearm if he was allowed to carry one. I would use an Abrams tank if necessary to protect that.
And, also, "we the people" are sovereign and thus, so is our government. The authority of a properly constituted state is not, and should not be, limited.
I really didn't want to come back to this inteminable debate but sometimes assertions are made that are so preposterous I just can't restrain myself.