On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 00:52:32 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

I don't see multiple sides to the position of reducing gun violence.
Study after study has shown and country after country has demonstrated
that fewer guns means fewer deaths.

====

Carried to its logical end point, your view leads to the inescapable
conclusion that eliminating all guns would eliminate all gun deaths.

That's right. But, nobody is actually talking about something like
that in a serious way. I'd be happy if there were no guns. I mean
zero. Just like no nukes. your point?

Since there are way too many people who would be all too happy to
press for eliminating all guns, the NRA serves as an effective
counterpoint to that line of reasoning. I think that if you actually
knew any rural gun owners, you'd find that they are almost universally
opposed to *any* increased gun control measures, mostly because they
don't trust you city/suburban folks or the type of government that you
advocate.

Really? Too many people? That's of course bull****, but lets assume
it's true. Carried to its logical end point, they might be in the
majority. I thought this was a democracy? So, you're saying **** the
democratic process, and you're going to decide to keep guns around
even though the majority doesn't want them. Of course this is just the
logical conclusion to your bull****.