[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
No my point was, to say "You don't have to buy a gun if you don't want one, just don't tell me what to do" doesn't mean anything to a gun control advocate. He wants the criminal NOT to have a gun so he or a loved one doesn't get shot. Saying it's simply an issue of personal choice doesn't address the concerns of the many innocent victims of gun violence every year.

And yes I realize criminals would likely find ways to get guns anyway, but that wasn't the point. The point was that it's not strictly personal choice, like if you choose to kill yourself with cigarettes or overeating. Innocent people get caught in the crossfire, and having the freedom to buy or not to buy a gun does not help them when they get shot.

Personally I'd prefer it be a little tougher for me to get a gun, if it makes it a lot tougher for a criminal to get one. You can argue that criminals will get guns anyway, but that is an issue of enforcement, not whether the laws violate your civil rights in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, exactly. This is all about your personal preference. You *might* do XYZ, so I need to pre-emptively attack you to prevent you from doing so.

The "guns only have one purpose" argument is a non-starter. Guns can be used to attack innocents, AND they can be used to stop those who are attacking innocents. The fact that you don't want them used in the former manner does not give you the right to prevent others from owning them, wether or not they may be used to do the latter. It's like saying "the only purpose of the internal combustion engine is to send heavy pieces of metal moving with force." You can look at anything in such a dumbed down, low-level manner and reduce it to "one function".

For those who think this "only one designed purpose" blather is a valid argument, should police and military units also be prohibited from possessing firearms? Why or why not?