Quote Originally Posted by PowerWizard View Post
Violence leads to violence. If everyone carries a gun with himself/herself, the probability that gunfights are going to occur is higher, therefore boundless gun ownership doesn't lead to bigger safety, but to more violence and danger. The statistics also support the latter statement. The rate of homicides committed with firearms is the highest in the USA. That country is world-leader with 65%, followed by developing and too safe countries like South Africa (69%), Colombia (45%), Zimbabwe (39%). These are the dry statistical facts, good Sir, you can't argue with numbers.
Surely one can argue about the significance of numbers and the meaning of them? What is the murder rate in switzerland? In any case, this was not what we were discussing.


And I will dismiss this faulty comparison again by pointing out that alcohol isn't specifically designed to kill people, meanwhile guns are.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and so do monkeys if they have a gun.
Why do you think that makes it a faulty comparison? Your argument was that people have a right to life. Many, many people die from drunk driving accidents. If you argue that guns being legal infringes on the population's right to life, then you would have to argue that alcohol being legal infringes on the population's right to life. You can say the problem is people driving when they shouldn't, I can say that the problem is people shooting other people when they shouldn't.

As for design, if you insist on it, I would not that cars are design to travel at lethal speeds and alcohol is designed to make people into dangerous drivers. But again, the point isn't to compare alcohol and guns, but to use the same logic you did on a different scenario. What is your argument for keeping alcohol legal, regardless of whether you consider the comparison valid?