Originally Posted by brantonli
I think that bolded sentence neatly summarises the difference between gun control and gun advocates stance. I firmly believe that people's right to life far, far outweighs the right to bear arms. Do other things kill people? Of course! But you must start somewhere in limiting it. Also I find the argument that 'Oh well, criminals can get guns whenever they like anyways', well that's assuming that the government bans guns and doesn't actually do anything to regulate or restrict firearms, which is just downright stupid. Of course if guns are banned, then the government/police will have to step up their efforts in confiscating and shutting down all gun manufacturers!
I think this bolded sentence represents what I see as the progressive blind spot on this topic. The notion that there's a practical way to limit rogue psychopaths in society, acting alone with a vicious intent to kill. To me, amping up gun regulations, even banning guns, will have very little effect on this. And in trade, you lose a massive amount of liberties and open the pandoras box of Washington DC's reach.