Tobleste wrote:Ors Might wrote:Typically, the absence of guns have never helped minorities of any kind. Lynchings, for example, were typically done with the commonly abailable tools of rope and farming equipment. Your gun control would have done shit for dick to protect them. Your logic here is akin to declawing animals to make cats safer against packs of Rottweilers.
With a totally heartfelt speech about how horrified you are and how anyone that doesn’t want knife regulation has no problem whatsoever with people dying. Seems to be your M.O for gun violence.
And if guns were available in the civil rights era, they'd have been fine? Was the 2nd amendment passed in 1990?
Except knives are used for things other than killing people. Guns, not so much. Besides, if knives and guns are the same, why do you need guns? Your arguments for guns have already come down to them being much more dangerous than knives so you know the comparison is garbage.
Do I think it would have been better for blacks in the civil rights era to have had a fighting chance against lynch mobs? Hell fucking yeah I do. On that note, friendly reminder that gun control has often been used to disarm minority groups often victimized by violence from their oppressors.
As are guns. Because a guy much bigger than me will also hade a gun. The fact that guns are better at killing things means that I, someone physically weaker than the average person, will have more of a fighting chance if I possess one. Yes, even if my attacker has a gun. Why? Because my ability to defend myself is maximized if I own a gun. That holds true in every scenario, bar none. Or are you going to claim that I’d find it easier to defend myself unarmed?
