What you're saying is not unique to firearms though, so why single out firearms in this case?
Welcome to my point. I was merely humoring your previous comment for argument's sake. People say "law abiding" as if it means all laws. Doing so is false, because just because you legally registered your firearm doesn't mean make you a "law abiding citizen". It means that you legally registered your weapon.
Yes. Which is not unique to firearms, so why single out firearms in this case?
That's the point. You're the one complaining as if it's wrong to punish everyone because of a few rotten apples. I'm telling you that's how life works. So, why should this be any different?
There's a whole range of restrictions that fall far short of total bans, which I still believe are well beyond what is reasonable. I'll also point out that while "most people" who ring in their opinions on the issue may not want a total ban on firearms, "most people" who are actually leading the cause and actually have the ears of politicians and who gain support from those other people *do* want a total ban on firearms. They see any restrictions they can get today as a step in that direction. Failing to see this makes you a chump.
That's a whole lot of words to deny the truth. The average person against guns probably wants guns gone all together, but anyone person with a half a mind realizes that isn't feasible. Any anti-gun person taken seriously is not looking for a total ban. Failing to see this makes you a ninny hammer.
Nope. I'm saying we should punish people for things they do, not things they might do.
If that were true, then you agree that the term "law abiding citizen" is stupid because being a "law abiding citizen" (good) is irrelevant as that citizen is no less of a threat than a person who illegally obtained their fire weapon.
As a whole? So you're in favor of a total ban? See I oppose most gun control laws because I believe that the benefits of an individual right to own firearms vastly outweigh the negatives. I would assume anyone who believes differently should support a total ban (or at least very very prohibitive controls on guns). Why wouldn't you?
In an idea world, of course. In reality, of course not. You're projecting fallacious views in order to support your view. As I said, most feasible arguments favor small arms and shot guns. The argument is against fire arms that allow large amounts of ammunition at a fast rate. 6 bullets are plenty enough to "protect" yourself in a typical scenario where self-defense is necessary.
"Reengage" is a euphemism in this case though, isn't it? This is where I'll point out for the umpteenth time that instead of making decisions based on emotion we should look at the actual proposed actions and assess their likelihood of actually affecting outcomes in a positive way.
It's not an emotional argument. It's the fact that the intentional negative misuse outweighs the benefits. The purpose of firearms is to kill. Plain and simple. The time of hunting and militias is over.
Most gun control proposals do little or nothing to curb violence and crime, and may in some cases make things worse. The biggest positive for gun control is that it makes people who want gun control think they're doing something good.
And that's a really stupid reason to pass laws.
Before I address this, do you seriously believe this nonsense?