The sad, sad thing is that while your question is obviously satire, it is very accurate in describing the discredited argument of the anti-gunners.
And to add to the hypocrisy further, the anti-gun politicians mostly (all?) conveniently have armed guards. NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM would prove their faith in anti-gun legislation by walking at night, with no guards, in downtown Chicago, the home of the most anti-gun legislation and gun control in the nation. What that amounts to is "one rule for the rulers and one rule for the ruled."
EDIT: science, on this issue (the only thing I'm going to discuss in this topic,) an emotional response is not a "far better argument." Arguments must be made on facts, recorded history, and even logic. This is why anti-gunners can't win any arguments on this issue, because neither of the three are on their side.
Facts have proven that gun control does not lower violent crime, and in many places, increases it. At the very least, it doesn't help or change things. And at the worst, you get the Democrat utopia of Chicago.
Recorded history (including our own, such as during Hurricane Katrina) proves that gun control leads to gun confiscation. Katrina was also a very good indicator of what happens after the gun confiscation happens; the criminals and thugs have free reign against unarmed victims.
And there is no way that logic supports the position that criminals (who obviously don't respect the law) will somehow magically turn over a new leaf and obey gun laws. That so-called logic (which is in a constant state of being discredited) holds absolutely no water.
As I said, it's an emotional argument that is based on a fictional utopian idea. Believe me, I love the idea of a world where we never have to worry about violence, crime, or the need to defend ourselves. In no way do I ever hope to have to use a firearm in self-defense. However, we live in the real world, one where police don't have "transporting (ala Star Trek) abilities" to instantly show up to help against a violent attacker or home invader. Using firearms for responsible self-defense (as well as plenty of other lawful purposes) may not be ideal or politically-correct, but it's still the best option that we have, when in the hands of somebody who is trained in responsible self-defense.
Since all the facts, evidence, and logic are on my side of the argument, this "debate" against unarmed foes was won before it started. As such, all I'll say now is "have a good evening." I'd stick to other topics, because you have no ammunition in this fight... pun intended.
· 6 years ago