I would rather live in a country were most people........

So that is all you have left?
Why not...Would you support mandatory background checks, waiting periods, purchase limits and/or required permits for high glycemic food use? It unintentionally kills many more than alcohol. Does that sound ridiculous to you? Probably not. You don't seem to know the moral difference between an unintentional cause of death and murder.

 

What more do you want?

'Why not...' what? 'Why not' as in you would be fine with the same restrictions you want on guns also applying to alcohol and sugary food?

or 'Why not' as in you still don't understand why I oppose more restrictions ostensibly meant to save lives applied to the things that cause less death?

That sounds just as ridiculous for sugary food as it does for alcohol and guns.

I've asked you already, and you've thus far refused to try to explain, why we need more laws to protect people from gun related deaths but not the bigger problem of alcohol related death. You're right- I dont understand. This is your opportunity to explain it. Go ahead... You mentioned a 'moral difference'. Personally I don't think morality should have any application in the law. But please explain what you mean.

 

What more do I want?
It seems all you have left is a false equivalence fallacy.

 

The problem here is not diversity of ideas, but rather that not all ideas have equal value. The problem is when one group gets into their heads that their ideas are good for me too. That's where the problems begin.

You can believe whatever you want, but you have no right to badger me with your "ideas" and force it through making it federal law. There is a serious threat to the erosion of the wall between religion and government. It needs to stop!

 

I would rather live in a country where most people know the difference between 'where' and 'were', or at least let auto-correct do its thing.

 

What fallacy? You want more laws to protect people from danger and death, right? But not sugar and alcohol, just guns.

Why?

 

I was afraid you wouldn't get it. At the risk of flogging a deceased pony.......causes of death in the cases of alcohol and guns are different, one is unintentional, the other intentional. The mechanism of the cause of death are different and have different sources and cures. Should you get heavy jail time if you caused a traffic accident and had a gun in the car? Trying to use the same cures for different causes is a false equivalency.

 

I might live in another country in the beginning of my retirement, and then return to US, but it has nothing to do with wanting more, or less diversity or any other nonsense like that. I wish US was less political and divided, and I expect that to improve as soon as we find politicians who do not aim to divide.

 

That pony is alive and uninjured. You havn't even touched it yet.

Drunk driving is intentional. Abusing alcohol after your doctor says 'you have to stop drinking, its killing you' is intentional. Not that it matters ...intentional death and unintentional death both result in death. You're trying to make a distinction where there isn't a difference, because you don't have any other way to answer the question- why do we need more laws to prevent gun deaths but not more laws to prevent alcohol deaths? The reason you don't have any other way to answer that question is because you think guns are immoral, alcohol is not, and you want to impose your morality on the nation.

You should get heavy jail time if you cause an accident while drinking and driving, just like how you get heavy jail time if you shoot someone who isn't a threat to you. Laws will not 'cure' gun violence any more than they've 'cured' drunk driving, which still kills a similar number of people as those who are murdered by shooting.

 

The pony is decomposing.....okay one more time and then I give up.

It's comparing apples and oranges. Both have being fruit in common but equivalence ends there. Guns, alcohol, swimming pools, sugar have people dying from their use. The equivalence ends there because they all have different causes and the cure for one cause will not translate to another cause. Will getting an increased sentence for having a donut or a gun in the car if you caused a wreck do anything for diabetes or gun control? It is a false equivalency.

An object has no morality. How it is used does. Laws will reduce gun violence and drunk driving. The example I used, Europe with twice our population had 34 mass shootings versus our 2,598 over the same time period, is an example of the stark difference in laws and how they effect society. Your comment that we should arm teachers, might have stopped a couple of the 2,598, but more arms are not the answer. I was standing in line at my favorite smoked brisket place and in front on me was a kid, maybe 20ish, with a gun sticking out of his front pocket with an extended magazine. He may have been a "law abiding gun owner" for all I knew, but does that really make society safer? No, you just want to have your gun without restrictions out of self-interest and everyone else is on their own. FREEDUMB

 

People in my utopia country have to respect democracy, science, and diversity of culture.

 

No, I have my gun without restrictions regardless of the law. I just don't want my victimless activity to make me a criminal. Especially since people that seek to engage in actual (victimizing) crime arent going to follow the law either. I want to be able to defend myself, and I want all the other decent folk in this nation to be able to defend themselves, on equal footing from people who are never going to respect any law -including gun laws- in the first place. Whether or not those people choose to defend themselves, it should be their choice.

Its not my fault that you don't want to carry a gun. You certainly dont have to. But making it harder for other people to carry a gun isn't going to protect you. It will in fact embolden those who would attack you because they know its even less likely that you or the people around you will be armed to defend against the violence.

...unless you happen to be wealthy enough to have armed security with you all the time. Do you? If not, you are the only reliable source for your own security, just as I am. You don't get to make me less safe (or make me into a criminal) just because it makes you feel more safe, especially when you are not objectively any more safe by doing it.

 

I Would Rather

Where most are "Jewish"
in thought & deed.

 

I prefer to live in a nation that follows the rule of the Law and our Constitution. If we really would do that again, we would be great again!