Something you might bring up the next time you have a discussion with a gun control advocate.
The Nirvana fallacy is a logical error of comparing a real world situation with the absolute ideal situation instead of all of the other possible real world situations. No reasonable person wants innocent people to die from gun violence. Some gun control advocates commit this Nirvana fallacy when they suggest that all guns should be confiscated. They think that this would actually result in no one dying from gun violence. But this is an unworkable solution; there is no way to confiscate all the guns in the country, and even if you did, smugglers would supply the criminals' demand.
Seeing how there is no way to eliminate gun deaths, we should look to the best way to reduce the deaths. To simplify, we have three options: more gun laws, fewer gun laws, or keep it the way it is. I can't go into the statistics as well as many on here, but it's obvious that more gun laws won't do the trick. Think of Chicago, where the solution to dozens of shootings in a weekend is to call for stricter gun control. I don't know how to get stricter than a ban except by saying "this time we mean it". Keeping gun laws the way they are is preferable to tmore, but the optimal solution to reducing gun violence is to allow more honest citizens to have guns.
P.S. I won't waste any bandwidth going into the obvious Constitutional issue. This policy analysis should be irrelevant given the fundamental right to gun ownership and self protection that was present in American and English civilization before the Constitution was written and indeed the Constitution protects it.
The Nirvana fallacy is a logical error of comparing a real world situation with the absolute ideal situation instead of all of the other possible real world situations. No reasonable person wants innocent people to die from gun violence. Some gun control advocates commit this Nirvana fallacy when they suggest that all guns should be confiscated. They think that this would actually result in no one dying from gun violence. But this is an unworkable solution; there is no way to confiscate all the guns in the country, and even if you did, smugglers would supply the criminals' demand.
Seeing how there is no way to eliminate gun deaths, we should look to the best way to reduce the deaths. To simplify, we have three options: more gun laws, fewer gun laws, or keep it the way it is. I can't go into the statistics as well as many on here, but it's obvious that more gun laws won't do the trick. Think of Chicago, where the solution to dozens of shootings in a weekend is to call for stricter gun control. I don't know how to get stricter than a ban except by saying "this time we mean it". Keeping gun laws the way they are is preferable to tmore, but the optimal solution to reducing gun violence is to allow more honest citizens to have guns.
P.S. I won't waste any bandwidth going into the obvious Constitutional issue. This policy analysis should be irrelevant given the fundamental right to gun ownership and self protection that was present in American and English civilization before the Constitution was written and indeed the Constitution protects it.