You're quick to sight isolated incidents however when albeit via satire I state another way someone might die in the same environment that doesn't count? What kinda logic is that?
I think you are mislabelling my argument - I don't remember putting forward any single incident, just commenting on the incidents (like Paris) that others have used. I don't see how any level of deaths by any other means has any bearing on deaths due to firearms - that is an argument solely put forward by the pro-gun lobby where somehow the fact that people also die in car accidents or by falling trees means we don't need to consider any form of gun control.
I feel like you guys think if there's a gun in the picture it's for sure going off and someone is getting killed.
Again, this is misrepresenting anything I believe I personally have said - did you mean to address this to me? I don't think a gun, as an inanimate object, is going to kill many people but a gun + people has been shown to be dangerous in many combinations whether that is because the person is a child, deranged, criminal, paranoid, malicious or simply careless.
I get it you think all guns should be banned, fine just add everything thing else to the list too as bombs are far more destructive and kill many more yet none of you have even mentioned it.
And again, I'm sure it makes your argument easier if you portray the argument as wanting to ban guns all together but where has this been suggested? Why does "better gun control" necessarily mean "complete ban on all guns"?
This is the sort of problem caused by the typical reaction to any mention of gun control that the religion obsession with the 2nd amendment causes. "You are trying to take all guns away" and everyone runs to their corners. Have I suggested "no guns at all"? Isn't it a straw-man argument?
I'm all for reasonable gun control however I refuse to say guns kill people. People kill people and they do it by many means. You'd be better off starting programs to help people coincide and relive stress than limiting a cartridge to 10 rounds instead of 15.
So we actually agree - we do need reasonable gun control, we just need to agree on what form that takes. You then state that what I would consider to be one such reasonable limit (how many rounds a magazine can hold) should not be an option, so our idea of that may be reasonable differ - I don't know why it's essential that someone can fire 15 shots instead of having to reload after 10 ... other than for bad reasons. To put it crudely, if it means "only" 10 kids are shot instead of 15 in some incident, I'd consider it worthwhile.
And I simply don't agree that some simple controls like this don't have any affect and don't save any lives. It's like saying that we should help people relieve stress and not bother limiting the size of a bottle of painkillers and yet when some simple controls are put on the sizes available the number of suicides go down. Doing both approaches is surely the right thing to do to save the most people.
