What it boils down to is that if you're going to argue for restrictions, tighter regulations, or bans on firearms - you'd better have studied the subject and you'd better have your logical ducks in order. Arguing via emotionalism, anecdotes, incorrect information, or unsupported assertions doesn't really move the credibility meter much.
I want to solve the problem but doing stupid things (feel-good bullshit) that won't fix the problem and actually make situations more dangerous isn't solving it.
|