I can't eat or hump a car or airplane, also neither one makes me safe. Therefore according to Maslow's pyramid, guns are more important than cars or airplanes because guns are a safety necessity, so we should ban cars and airplanes before banning guns.
Except that the safety a gun gives is mainly due to the lack of safety a gun gives. (ie. You need a gun for safety because someone else has a gun)
But since I'm not advocating a total ban on guns, just assault rifles, then your point is irrelevant.
And yet they are ultimately irrelevant to crime. The amount of guns in the U.S. is constantly going up but crime is declining.
So why are you so afraid to be without one? Crime is decreasing and thus so is firearm crime. Therefore, the need for a gun for safety is also decreasing.
Right. An object only has a singular purpose when it is created and never changes that purpose or finds new purposes, ever. What a strange world you live in where everything is so linear.
Last time I checked, guns are still used to kill things. Has that stopped since last I checked?
I assume you also support changing the 2nd amendment, since it states you can not infringe on someone's right to own arms.
Is a pistol not an armament? Is a sword not an armament? Is a mace not an armament?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about guns, just weapons in general. So as long as we don't prevent someone from having weapons, we're fine. We can, however, limit the type of weapon they can have.
It's fine if you believe we should be entitled to all sorts of weapons like missiles, weaponized diseases, and nuclear bombs, but the majority of us don't see it that way.
Lorddave, I really thought you were better than this. If I wanted to find out how many people smoke pot in the US, would I use the amount of people convicted for the crime? No, it wouldn't even scratch the surface of how many people smoke pot in the US. All statisticians in the country would laugh in my face. That is why, as a statistician, I am obligated to laugh at yours.
Only because you're going from a position of knowledge. You KNOW that most people don't get caught with pot. We also know that there isn't a military campaign to weed out pot smokers. We have a very light police division but we don't exactly have the Gestapo breaking down doors of suspected pot dealers. And while I'm sure the number 77,000 is not all of them, history shows that there weren't that many actual attempts on Hitler's life. Nor did the German resistance do much good.
We must also consider that the only real protest was of 6,000 people, mostly women in 1943.
Considering that, the 77,000 people is likely far too high for an accurate count and likely represents many false positives.
The simple truth is that there was not a lot of public resistance. Anything that wasn't public was too insignificant to do any real harm to the 3rd reich.
Poll