Five-year-old boy accidentally shoots, kills sister

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

So unless the right wing gun nuts get a 100% guarantee no gun laws are any good???Most responsible gun owners said that these knew laws won't pertain to them and most of them say they don't need or want most of the banned ones people are talking about, then I ask so why fight them? If any of these new laws save one child or stop just one idiot .....then they are worth it. This doesn't have a damn thing to do with the 2A and right wing gun nuts know it, look the largest donations to the NRA are gun makers this is all about selling more guns. These laws are not 100% , everyone knows it and nobody has said they would be but if they stop just one death then they are worth it.

you really are presenting a whole slew of fallacious arguments wrapped up into a jumble.

1st) no one on either side is arguing for no gun laws ever, or more specifically for every 1 that argues that, there is a corresponding nut that says no guns ever no way no how. That part of the debate is simply irrational.

2nd) just because a law doesn't pertain to you specifically doesn't make fighting it a wrong choice. In fact, there are many rational reasons why someone who won't be affected by a new law might still consider the law itself flawed

3rd) ah, the old save one child argument. Again, will you ban cars, pools, super sugary sodas, bow and arrows, hunting knives, slingshots, darts and dartboards. You make laws that protect, you don't make laws to bubble wrap.

4th) you might not think it has to do with 2nd Amendment issues, but seeing as how it specifically states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", I think that it has to always be looked at to some degree through that lens.

5th) after setting up a strawman of no laws, you turn around and use the reverse as proof, saying they aren't 100%.

6th) Lots of things "stop one death", that is not a sound basis for writing laws affecting 350million people.

Every one of those points is not even about arguing the merits of your position or what you presume mine to be, it's simply showing that for debate, and rational discussion, they are not very good starting points.