I got the point, but I don't think you got where I took it. Yes, you could just ban all guns based on your original statement, that's one way to look at it. The problem is why weapons were made in the first place, and who made them. To remove guns you're just asking for other weapons to be used, or for new even more efficient weapons to be made in there place, unless you create a perfectly equal society this time around, which you won't be able to do. I'm simply looking at the bigger picture, not just the statement in a bubble.
Well what was the point in saying "If guns don't kill people, people do.....then guns don't protect people, people do."? Especially since you directed it at the NRA since they are using that as a scapegoat to allow guns in your eyes. It would only make sense if you thought having guns was a bad thing. Considering it's people protecting people, why would you need guns?
If it has nothing to do with people having guns or banning guns, then it really doesn't make any sense. You're not nullifying anything if you're not proving they're wrong, and the only way to do that is to prove things would be better without guns, since their point is that bad people who use guns kill people, not good people with guns. The slogan is just a shorter, more to the point version of that.
So, no you, just as KLAMarine, did not get the point. Nor understand the nullification of the statement itself, it seems. So I'll repeat what I said to KLAMarine for you.
Your whole logic train runs like this.
Strong dominates weak > weak obtains gun to dominate strong > strong is now the weak > new weak/former strong obtains gun to dominate against new strong/former weak = we all have guns.
We are the only developed nation on Earth with this irrational band-aid mentality.
And if you really want to go back to the actual point of it all....if people are the actual problem, why the hell aren't we trying to fix the people? If people are the problem, why the hell do we want to give the problem lethal weapons?
Well isn't that what happened? Not just within America, either. Weaker people of other nations also created stronger weapons to defeat the people of strong nations.
Your nation likely wouldn't have got to where it is without it, and yet people still flock to your nation for some odd reason, even though there are many other developed nations who've solved this issue apparently.
Our conversation right here should be explanation enough. People are different, so you can just imagine 100's of millions of people arguing about it and where it would lead. Who is a problem and who isn't? Where do you draw the line? If those people are borderline and aren't aloud to have a gun, yet get gunned down while being left unequally defenseless, is that ok?
The problem when it comes to safety is people don't really care about the greater good in that aspect. People are very selfish when it comes to safety, and naturally so. It's a rarity to find someone who would risk or give their life to save some people they don't know and never will. It's also not fair to give someone an advantage over another when it comes to life or death, because you don't know the future, just the odds, and the odds are far from guaranteed.
Fixing people is something people have been working on for thousands of years, and we have no idea if we truly have made things better or worse. All we have is our perspective and that doesn't prove right from wrong unfortunately.