>>36444689Really? Ask any historian. Democracy has a far better track record than fucking Tyranny which is absolute dogshit. For example you do realize that life for Somalians improved under anarchy as compared to under the communist regime?
The reason I cling to guns is because I cling to my freedoms. I don't own guns for protection, so it's a moot point. I like guns because they are fun, they are pleasurable. It's the same thing for motorcycles and indeed if this argument was about motorcycles, my arguments would be the same exact thing.
>I fear deathHaha, clearly not to the same extent as you. Everytime I go outside I risk getting run over by a drunk driver. I am here on a crusade to install breathalyzers in all cars or severely limit the availability of alcohol. It's just the cost I take and accept for living in a free society and for the freedoms I take so granted. I'd take any day over an overbearing padded nanny state.
>Design over usage is completely irrelevant to the argument. No it isn't. Just because guns are designed to kill does not mean usage of guns will result in more deaths than an object designed NOT to kill. It all depends on how the object is used.
Knives, bows, swords, guns. All of these were originally designed to kill. That does not mean usage or widespread ownership of these objects will result in more deaths, than let's say cigarettes or alcohol. By focusing on what the object is designed for and not how many deaths it results from with usage, you undermine the fuck out of your argument. You are selective about the lives you wish to save, and we are all.
>It is inherently wrong. And moral relativity, really? How delightfully adolescent. Look up what the moral error theory is. Morality isn't instrinsic.
>I don't believe I'd indicated that the time had comeStill waiting. The funny thing is that support for gun control was greater in the 60's than now.
