Your analogy is false and you should feel bad for making it. Do people get addicted to guns? No. Can you cut guns with baby powder and the like? No. Can you smuggle drugs through a metal detector? Yeps. Does cocaine allow you to kill who knows how many dozens of kids at a school or at a concert? No.
The goal isn’t to stop random criminals. The goal is to make mass shootings a lot more difficult.
I’ve literally given you proof that you can. You can get addicted to anything that gives you dopamine. Either provide proof for your claim like I have, or shut the fuck up.
Why can’t you answer the question? You said banning something causes a booming black market and I asked you about asbestos. This should be so simple for someone who I am positive has had 2,000 arguments on Twatter about the definition of assault rifle.
Your analogy is false and you should feel bad for making it. Do people get addicted to guns? No. Can you cut guns with baby powder and the like? No. Can you smuggle drugs through a metal detector? Yeps. Does cocaine allow you to kill who knows how many dozens of kids at a school or at a concert? No.
The goal isn’t to stop random criminals. The goal is to make mass shootings a lot more difficult.
Of course people can get addicted to guns you giant idiot.
You can’t get addicted to a fucking gun
I’ve literally given you proof that you can. You can get addicted to anything that gives you dopamine. Either provide proof for your claim like I have, or shut the fuck up.
No, my analogy isn’t false. Banning something only creates a booming black market, as we saw with the war on drugs.
I’m not sure why you thought I was saying that guns and drugs carried the same dangers.
Really how is the booming market for asbestos going? Answer the question
Asbestos is 100% legal in the US, so try again.
don’t be petulant
Why can’t you answer the question? You said banning something causes a booming black market and I asked you about asbestos. This should be so simple for someone who I am positive has had 2,000 arguments on Twatter about the definition of assault rifle.
>This should be so simple for someone who I am positive has had 2,000 arguments on Twatter about the definition of assault rifle.
this is pigeonholing, or maybe poisoning the well. either way, it’s ad hominem. it’s sophistry, not logic.
How about some lead paint instead?
have you considered that pairing and rhetoric are inferior tactics? they may win an audience but they get us no closer to Truth.
>You said banning something causes a booming black market
no, I didn’t
I got some raw uncut asbestos you can have if you want. It’s street value is negative.
you literally don’t know who you are talking to.