<p>Oh man - like I said, I feel very stronly that gun control doesn't help anyone, so I can't resist this thread-jack.</p>
<p>Of course the car example is a valid counter-argument (I have a degree in philosophy - trust me on this one). You're putting forth a non sequitur as an argument. My counter is an example of another (more obvious) non sequitur. You say that more guns (inanimate tools with several uses) will cause people (rational beings with the power of decisionmaking) to do something with them. That is not true, as evidenced by the idea that more cars (also inanimate tools used for a variety of purposes) will make more people drive drunk (or drive their cars over a bridge on purpose, etc etc.). </p>
<p>I just picked up a new handgun yesterday - does the fact that I now have more guns than I did yesterday make me more likely to go out and shoot someone with said firearms? No, of course not. Guns don't fire bullets without someone pulling the trigger, much like cars don't move anywhere without somone pushing the gas pedal. </p>
<p>As for restrictions on guns... if the above argument isn't enough for you, consider this challenge and argument. I dare you to find me an example of restrictions on guns causing significantly less (or no) gun violence/crimes and keeping them down (i.e. not a normal fluctuation in crime trends). Again you can trust me on this - you won't find one. </p>
<p>Please, research this. Or better yet, call up the British government and ask them how their total ban on handguns is going. They still have a lot of crimes and shootings involving those "banned" guns. I wonder how that happened? People can't have things that are restricted/illegal. Oh thats right - criminals don't obey the law and will always have illegal things. Restricting guns (which are the best tool we as humans currently have for self-defense at the moment) only hurts law-abiding people who have no desire to hurt anyone if they don't have to. People have a right to self-defense (no one is going to argue that), but that also implies the right to the tools necessary to effect that self-defense.</p>
<p>Continuing with the restrictions theme... If you look at all the of the mass shootings in recent history, the vast majority of them took place in so-called "gun free zones", where people were forbidden from possessing loaded firearms. Hmmm... but they are "gun-free zones" - that means the guns just disappear when someone tries to bring them into these zones :rolleyes:. Lets list a few: Columbine, Amish school, Luby's (Texas massacre), VA Tech, etc etc etc. When is the last time you heard someone go shoot up a police station, or gun show, or shooting range? This is too much to be statistical coincidence, don't you think?</p>
<p>More gun control = more gun crime (precisely because criminals know they can't be opposed on any reasonable level)</p>
<p>Vermont - no license required to carry a concealed loaded handgun - want to guess what happened to their violent crime rate after that law was passed?</p>
<p>Florida - recently passed a concealed carry law - same thing - decrease in violent crime (and interesting side effect - an increase in crime on tourists, who could reasonably be presumed to be unarmed)</p>
<p>Switzerland - Required military service - after military service, required to keep your assault rifle and ammo in your home in a "ready" state. (= heavily armed populace) Ever know that Switzerland, despite its proximity to Germany and its very small size, was never invaded by the Nazis during WWII? Nazi war documents found after the war stated that they expected too much resistance because the entire population was armed to the teeth and deemed that it would take too many resources to conquer.</p>
<p>Next!!!</p>