This is the problem you don't understand when you make arguments that they have larger implications. It's the equivalent of saying, "I just pulled a trigger." Yeah, but when you pulled the trigger a chain reaction occurred and you don't get to pretend you didn't shoot the bullet. But logic mistake is what you do, over and over again. "Show me where I shot the bullet!!! I just pulled the trigger!!!!'
You're trying to argue gun laws won't work because people still do drugs with existing drug laws. However, fewer people do drugs because of drug laws than if they were legal like in the case of guns.
The same way with more stringent gun laws people will still illegally possess guns, but at a much lower instance than in the present. Most reasonable people would consider that fewer gun crimes would be a good thing.
OR, a simpler explanation is that people make statements and you wish to argue things they didn't say. So you ASSUME they meant something else and start arguing that point. (Perhaps the connections between what people said and your "logical" leaps to what you think they meant aren't as solid as you think)
I never suggested we should legalize drugs, that was you reading what you wanted to read in my statement.
I would suggest that, like drugs, stiffer gun laws would do a very good job of reducing the use by law abiding citizens, but not so much by people who are going to break the law regardless.
I understand you can't really think along lines more complicated than "guns bad, ban all guns, then no more guns". I also understand that it doesn't matter what I or anyone else types, you'll pick something to melt down over whether it was actually said or not.
Then it'll be a few post of insults with you repeating "cognitive dissonance" or "bad faith" as if that helps your tirade, and then we move on with any sensible discussion of the topic being impossible.
Should we skip ahead or do you want to go through your regular playbook again?
