Two NYPD officers in Brooklyn are in critical condition after being ambushed.

Happy New Year to you too. The Value of Freedom of Entertainment “I don't want them banned, but I don't want as many people to use them as currently do.” That’s a tricky proposition. You don’t want them banned, which means you want people to be (legally) free to use them. You just don’t like the way people are exercising this legal right. This can mean a few things. 1. You don’t like it, but even as a respecter of the rights of others, you reserve your own right to call it as you see it (EX: The old chestnut about free speech, “I would fight to the death your right to say it, but I’d rather die than hear it”). This, of course, is not assertive enough for your purposes. So perhaps you mean, 2. You don’t like it and you don’t want to change the law, but you wish for the power of social pressure to get people to naturally comply with (what you see as) common sense. That is, you don’t want to use the hard power of government coercion, but the soft power of social pressure and reason to do the work. 3. You don’t want guns banned outright, but you do want additional limitations backed by force of law. Note, that with this option, you are the one proposing changing the status quo. Thus, in this case, you have the burden of proof. “I think a lot of the people who argue that you can't prohibit gun ownership any further than is currently done aren't really being honest with themselves about guns and a lot of the surrounding issues. IE, my goal isn't that guns should be prohibited, but I want people who aren't open to it to be more open to the idea based on the danger. I'll admit this can get sort of lost in the confrontational aspect of a debate, but it is my actual goal.” So, you’re opting for #2? “I argue about how damaging they are,” “Damaging” needs to be defined. Damaging to what? Guns, by design, are supposed to damage the things at which they are targeted. Then again, so are pesticides, mousetraps, and antibiotics. Indeed, all these things would be useless if they did not! Let’s keep this in mind when we visit your claim below that guns are useless.
Guns are not intrinsically “damaging” to defensive capabilities. If they were, why would police forces and armies carry them? No, they find them to be a downright bonus. How would you convince a police force or army that guns are damaging, and that this is a reason that counts against their use? Also, guns are not damaging to your right to defend yourself from others. In the hands of the untrained and the unvigilant they may pose a greater threat to oneself, but people have a right both to imperil themselves and defend themselves. Guns afford yahoos the ability to do both at once. For the trained and the cautious, however, they allow for enhanced self-defense without added risk to personal injury (and if they didn’t they would be a net-disadvantage for cops and soldiers).
”many more enjoyable, useful things” A common problem in the gun debate is that people who don’t own them don’t think they’re useful (if they did, they’d probably own one), so they’re basically blind to the possibility that guns actually might be good for something. In fact, guns are good for something. They’re good at damaging flesh. They’re great at it. If you’re a hunter, this is useful (i.e., you actually have to kill the critter if you want to eat it). If you’re a soldier, this is useful (need I describe this unfortunate, but necessary occupation?). If you’re a cop, this is useful. And if it’s your ass were on the line, you might find it useful too. Or perhaps you concede that guns are useful, but would direct my attention to other useful things which are heavily regulated? You might not agree, but this would be a more effective rhetorical strategy. “regulated more strongly (vehicles, etc.),” Well, if getting a gun were as easy as getting a car, you’d still live in a world where every idiot had access to one. Indeed, there are a good many “unregulated” drivers out there (e.g., no insurance, no driver’s license), so regulation in terms of enforcement is another question we should visit. Also, we should keep in mind that cars don’t have waiting periods. And there is no limit to the amount of power we let people put into cars. Want a 707 horsepower Hellcat? Go for it! Want a Humvee just because “FREEDOM!”? Go for it! Also, most felons don’t lose their right to drive. Are you sure cars are more heavily regulated overall? ”I don't like government regulation any more than the next guy, but I want some toys to be less fun than others if they're dangerous.” Fine, you are hereby disinvited from the pool party. And don’t jump on the trampoline either. Remember, these are totally non-fun things to play with. I want you to enjoy these less and perhaps take up stamp collecting. “I don't drink, myself.” So, you’re a teetotaler who does not want us to enjoy dangerous toys or sports. Got it. “My ideal America is not an America… …where guns are prohibited, but where they could be prohibited and no one would really complain too much.” LOL, “My ideal America is not an America where people’s rights are taken away, but where they could be taken away and no one would really complain too much.” This is, pretty much a definition of post 9-11 America. Be careful what you wish for.

/r/news Thread Link - pix11.com