> So why are you worried about gun bans? You can just use a knife instead.
You seem to be confused about the concept that self-defense is a different use case than mass shootings. Why is that?
> I think you must know, really, that guns are more dangerous and effective than knives. That's why you want the right to own one.
Are you under the impression that this poster would not object to a ban on knives? Why?
> It's also why the US has frequent mass shootings in schools, whereas there are no instances of mass stabbings in UK schools.
Thank you for providing a good example of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy
> The first principle of responsible gun use is not to point a gun at anything you don't want to kill.
And that's why there's always bullet holes anywhere that a gun has pointed, because they always have to shoot anything it points at? Were you similarly not aware that it is possible to pull a gun but not point it at the person?
Your first points is obscured by snark. The second seems to be based on a misreading. The third is merely the observation that empirical reasoning is non-demonstrative.
As for number four, I see that you are another pro-gun poster who is unfamiliar with the absolute basics of firearm safety. That doesn't make a great case for private gun ownership. Here's what the pinky leftos at concealednation.org have to say (see point 2): https://concealednation.org/2013/11/the-4-rules-of-gun-safet...
What is obscured about the observation that your comment doesn't recognize the differences between self-defense and mass shootings, and how the qualities of the weapon affect the benefits for the user?
> The second seems to be based on a misreading.
You'll have to explain why questioning an intellectually defunct implication is a "misreading".
"that guns are more dangerous and effective than knives. That's why you want the right to own one."
Considering your claim is that desiring the right to own one is some kind of evidence that guns are "more dangerous and effective", it is thoroughly debunked if the person also desires the right to own knives.
> The third is merely the observation that empirical reasoning is non-demonstrative.
It should be noted that making a gigantic logical leap from "guns are more dangerous and effective than knives" to "It's also why the US has frequent mass shootings in schools, whereas there are no instances of mass stabbings in UK schools" is to ignore the social, cultural, economic factors that affect crime. That's not a good basis for understanding of criminal behavior.
And your last paragraph is just a complete misunderstanding of what the poster said. My comment was not to denounce the rule about where you point the gun, but to note that your claim about killing was unfounded.
> And I don't have to kill them if I pull a gun on one
The fact that you don't understand this is really troublesome. Are you one of those people who believes in that old myth about swords having to taste blood before being resheathed? Because this is on that level.
Hmm? The point is that whenever you point a gun at someone there's a significant risk that you'll shoot and kill them. Hence, you should not do it if this is not your intention. This precludes threatening people by pointing guns at them, except in the case where you are prepared to take full responsibility for their death, should this occur.
So you agree with the other poster that is is possible to pull a gun and point it at them without killing them. What a roundabout way of pretending to disagree.
You seem to be confused about the concept that self-defense is a different use case than mass shootings. Why is that?
> I think you must know, really, that guns are more dangerous and effective than knives. That's why you want the right to own one.
Are you under the impression that this poster would not object to a ban on knives? Why?
> It's also why the US has frequent mass shootings in schools, whereas there are no instances of mass stabbings in UK schools.
Thank you for providing a good example of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy
> The first principle of responsible gun use is not to point a gun at anything you don't want to kill.
And that's why there's always bullet holes anywhere that a gun has pointed, because they always have to shoot anything it points at? Were you similarly not aware that it is possible to pull a gun but not point it at the person?