I know I've done well when I've got both sides mad at me. Here is where I see the similarity between you and those guys on the other side who are also arguing w

I know I've done well when I've got both sides mad at me. Here is where I see the similarity between you and those guys on the other side who are also arguing with me: you want a perfect solution. My initial comment poses gun rights as a tradeoff between violence and the limitations on governmental power. This makes your side start commenting about how guns are a perfect solution, they'll lower violence. And it causes the gun-controllers to start talking about how gun control is a perfect solution because it will lower violence and it's pointless to try to overthrow the government. Now it's hard to have a fact-based debate about guns considering the polarized discourse. I ask three things. 1) Consider that just maybe, access to a device which allows you to kill quickly, cleanly and with lessened emotional involvement (versus say a knife) leads to more people murdering. 2) Consider that people are not cleanly seperated into law-abiders and criminals, people move back and forth all the time and there are various degrees of law-breaking and criminality. When you turn people who commit gun crimes into an other, it's a lot easier to seperate yourself from their actions. I would also say that saying that criminals are all these extreme monsters who will violate ANY law to be able to kill however they want is just a complete mischaracterization. 3) Consider that I support the bill this thread is about and reread my initial comment.