Again, noone is talking about banning guns.
and eating a cookie is a much different level of concern than children losing their lives
not to mention it only involves one individual who also is the only one the choice impacts
whereas weapons involves the consequences OTHERS will receive upon them by another persons choice
literally, cookies and bullets ...
Obviously you missed my point?
also, people don't use weapons to kill.
"A" person uses "A" weapon to kill.
Something I've noticed about hot topics is that no matter the reasoning presented, some people will argue no matter what.
Gun control debates are nothing new.
For all the hub-bub, no solution can be found.
When a viable solution is offered, that has nothing to do with guns, it is ignored or immediately shot down because it doesn't side with their particular side.
The FACT that there is still a debate is PROOF that the debates on the subject at hand are ineffective as a solution to the problem.
Why people can't see that is a mystery to me.
Lets just argue for the sake of arguing.
Meanwhile, another school, workplace or random killing happens.
Over and over, Death, Discussion, Death, Discussion...
LOL, its pathetic.
I apologize if you felt I was ignoring your argument. I wasnt. And I am certainly not arguing 'just to argue'.
In fact, I have stated many times that the health of the person is a PART of the problem. What I debate (because I believe it is an important point to draw attention to) is that it is in any way the ONLY part that can or should be addressed.
By the nature of anything being inanimate it cannot 'kill' without being used by a person in some way. Poison does not kill people but people can be killed if served poison, therefore we regulate what is in our foods or drugs that might be poisonous.
That is the problem, for me, with the 'guns dont kill people' argument, because to me, it IGNORES the part that guns PLAY When people die by GUNFIRE.
Apology accepted, thanx
While I do see your point and understanding human predelictions, removing some guns from the populations acces could be beneficial at first.
However, if the mindset is changed, the predeliction to aquire the guns also changes. The guns can still be available but are not obtained. Over time, the available guns decreases because they are no longer sought.
If I am a drug addict or an alcoholic, you can remove the drugs and alcohol from my grasp. I will still be a drug addict or an alcoholic.
However, if you chnge my thinking, I can have drugs and alcohol available to me and I still won't use them.
Eventually, since I am no longer using them, their availability diminishes.
But...if all mindsets do not change, the availability remains.
If nobody buys beer anymore, stores will stop selling it. You could still get beer from underground sources but what if those suppliers had no customers either?
You could buy or make your own brewery but with the change in mindset, the will is gone.
Its this shift in thinking that makes sense to me.
I didn't say it would be an easy change to make.
Some solutions to problems are not easy.
However, when they happen, the problem goes away...for good.
