The most retarded out of all the retarded pro-gun arguments has to be this one. It's so stupid I didn't even think to address it in my last post, and yet people are still making this argument as though it has some validity.
"The places with the most gun restrictions in America, like inner city Chicago, are the most rife with gun violence, therefore restricting gun rights does not work."
How fucking stupid do you have to be to make this argument? It doesn't matter what Chicago's gun laws are, or Illinois' gun laws are, because criminals can just go buy their guns from the next city or state over, where guns are still flowing like molasses. Only until there's a nation-wide ban on guns will gun restrictions have any effect. If you can just buy guns five miles away, then drive back into town, it doesn't matter what the city tries to do to stop gun sales. They're completely powerless. Their laws cannot work in isolation.
Just imagine if you were trying to ban abortion. So you ban abortions from happening in Chicago. So all the pregnant women drive to Springfield nearby and get their abortion anyway, and then come back to Chicago. Would you say this proves it's impossible to ban abortions so we may as well just legalize them everywhere already? Or would you argue for a nation wide ban of abortions so that people can't so easily just get them somewhere else?
Imagine if a single city was trying to ban drugs but every other city was selling them openly north south west and east of them. Would drug use inside the city borders prove that banning drugs doesn't work? Or would it prove that only a nation-wide ban on drug sales has any effect on drug sales? (Guess what, Singapore doesn't seem to have a problem with drugs, I wonder why that is?)
What if you banned insider trading in New York City, but it was still legal everywhere else in America? Would said ban have any effect on anyone? Of course not. Insider trades would just take place outside of New York, and the business would hum along without a hitch.
What if we banned gambling in some places but allowed it in others? Oh wait, we do that. Guess what, the gamblers just go to the legal places and the gambling continues as before.
Unless you A) control your borders, something Singapore is willing to do but we aren't, and B) impose a nation-wide ban on something, your law won't have any effect. Of course it won't have any effect. It's like trying to stop weather from moving across the United States. If you can get guns anywhere you can move guns everywhere. Canada has a nation wide ban on guns, so it doesn't have any inner city gun problems. Chicago can pass any law it wants on guns, but it's meaningless unless the rest of the nation cooperates with them. They can't control things outside their own jurisdiction, so of course their gun laws don't work. Why would they? Under what model of the laws of physics should Chicago's gun laws have any effect? Who could possibly imagine they would do anything? It's just retarded.
It's retarded how fucking retarded pro-gun advocates are. The logical cases they make for guns are things they would never argue about in any other case for any other object. They make obviously spurious, obviously false arguments that they know make no sense, arguments they would never make over anything else in any other similar situation, and then smugly think they've said something other than just how stupid they are.
"There will be gun violence no matter what." So we should just legalize guns already? That logic could extend just as easily to:
"There will be violence no matter what." So we should just legalize violence, right? Since it's impossible to stop anyway, why even bother resisting?
This is 4th grader logic. This is nyaah nyaah stick my tongue out blublublublublu. There's no point even discussing matters with gun advocates. Adults need to stick them in the playpen and just get down to business banning guns already. Enough is enough.