From the "Study" said:
Three key themes drive the most powerful arguments for gun violence prevention:
ONE: The serious personal toll that gun violence takes on people’s lives.
TW0: People’s right to be free from violence in their communities.
THREE: The changing nature of weapons towards more powerful, military-style ones that make us less safe.
One: Gun violence does not exist. All violence takes a serious toll. However, violence in self-defense prevents the toll of offensive violence--and that requires the tools to exert that defense.
Two: There is no "right to be free from violence in [your] communities." There is a natural right to defend yourself against unwarranted violence on your person--and that requires the tools to exert that defense.
Three: Weapons that are used in offensive violence are becoming more powerful, so too should the weapons of self-defense, i.e. more powerful tools are required to exert self-defense.
Funny how the study says that the pro-2A folks are the emotional ones, and the antis are the logical ones. Their whole line of reasoning rests on the irrational fear of an inanimate object. Our whole line of reasoning rests on the rational recognition that some
people out there will do nasty things with whatever objects they have at hand, so it is perfectly reasonable that we have one of the most effective objects of defense ever envisioned in the mind of man: the gun.
