You put no intellectual effort into rebutting, and made senseless and incorrect assumptions about me. I made a good faith attempt at making an incremental improvement in keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them.
You just compared two objects. State your case or move on.
I'm not liable for a criminal taking my car and running over pedestrians even if I leave the door open and engines running in a public place.
No, someone would not be immediately thrown in an incarceration pit if someone stole their gun on a Saturday afternoon and killed someone on a Saturday night. Jesus, this is a HN thread. It's a whiteboard, not legislative text. Open your mind.
Ahh, the true sign of someone arguing in good faith.
> you have a very bad faith manner of making your points.
As opposed to your "stay calm and passive aggressive" nonsense.
> nothing in your tone suggests humility, decency or the willingness to debate with people as if they are partners in the community. You're looking for a fight. You aren't looking for solutions.
I'm not willing to debate your insane proposal. There's no humility here because I'm right. You're not going to change my mind because it's a stupid idea. I'm not looking for a fight, your idea is dumb. It has no corollary in any situation where something deadly is stolen (cars, prescription drugs, literally anything). To make an exception for the one thing that is constitutionally guaranteed is the most absurd way of going about such a thing. Not to mention the fact that it's completely _impractical_ politically, even if you could convince someone that it was a good idea.
I have the solution, stop proposing this bad idea.