I'm not sure if I'm getting this right as you've not given much of a firm ground to step on for discussion, but if we're to entertain your link-dump for a while and try to squeeze an argument out of it, you seem to be alluding to the notion that guns kill less people than diseases, cars and drugs do. Am I close to what you're getting at?
If so, what conclusion does that lead us to? That all those other causes for death have a priority and should be addressed first, before addressing firearm homicides altogether? Or am I getting too far off? Because if I'm not, then this sort of reasoning doesn't make much sense to me, regardless of what my stance on gun control might or might not be. You could've probably opted for a more sensible argument to support your position?
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 30/12/12 14:54 (UTC)If so, what conclusion does that lead us to? That all those other causes for death have a priority and should be addressed first, before addressing firearm homicides altogether? Or am I getting too far off? Because if I'm not, then this sort of reasoning doesn't make much sense to me, regardless of what my stance on gun control might or might not be. You could've probably opted for a more sensible argument to support your position?