Yet another staunch liberal college student writes for more heavy gun regulation, immediately after its fallacy hits him square in the nose.
I just can't grasp how he goes from this:
Single mothers have guns and weary adults who fear gang violence have guns. Citizens who have the constitutional right to bear arms are bearing these arms, but these specific arms are not the arms that go arm in arm with the violence on the streets.To this:
...I absolutely think guns need to be regulated - heavily regulated.After a little more back and forth, he concludes with:
"Let me guess: You think guns don't kill people; you think people kill people. Let me tell you what I think: I think people with guns kill people."So after saying lawful gun owners are not part of the violence on the street, after acknowledging nightly murders and school shootings, and after his friend shows concern for his or her life while walking the streets, the only conclusion must be more gun control. I think his cognitive dissonance is showing.
But that doesn't matter to him. To have a gun would be worse than being a victim of Philly's murderous thugs or "government storm troopers."