A letter to The Detroit Free Press, that received top billing no less, illustrates one of the many problems with the anti-gunner's position. It's not logic or facts that matters to them, but feelings:
Letters: What's safer, more guns or no guns?
For me, the subject of gun control comes down to one big question: What would make me feel safer, knowing that many people around have guns but I also have a gun, or knowing that no one around me has a gun?
I choose the latter!
If you feel the same way, then it is time we talk about real gun control laws. The United Kingdom has one of the lowest incidences of gun homicides with tough gun laws, but hunters and sportsmen are still allowed to own and use their guns. The U.S., on the other hand, has around 30,000 gun-related deaths annually. Is this the price we want to pay for gun "rights"?
The facts show that Jeremy is wrong about his entire feeling-based argument, not to mention his complete falsehood that British "hunters and sportsmen are still allowed to own and use their guns."
Of course, his whole argument immediately falls apart on his supposition that there would be no guns around him if guns were banned. Even in cities with total gun bans, or even in his cited United Kingdom where handguns are banned, criminals still have handguns, regardless of his precious feelings.
He both chooses and argues.....poorly.