Quote:

---

Ideally, I would want no-one but myself to have weapons capable of causing injury or harm to me or my loved ones.

---

So you're the only one who should have access to the guns that you can use to injure yourself and the ones you love?

Quote:

---

I realize this is not a solution that will be endorsed by all, however--but if one is going to ban certain things in interest of the public safety, it makes more sense to ban handguns than it does to ban vegetables.

---

Show me the sense you're talking about, you keep saying that it would make more sense, yet you never say what it is. So what is it?

Quote:

---

Our society already prevents certain people from having certain instruments that have the potential to cause harm to others.

---

Quote:

---

Since we already have the practice of banning certain items, it makes more sense to ban those items that have more potential for causing harm, as presumably our laws are motivated to prevent the loss of life.

---

Since we already have the practice of killing, it also makes sense to keep killing anyways, regardless of the means that we have, regardless of how much it helps or not, without considering any other alternatives... all because of the past and preserving tradition.

Quote:

---

MushroomTrip said:
This is exactly what I was talking about; while it is OK to have any personal belief you want, it can't stand as a valid argument in a debate forum.

---

Quote:

---

MushroomTrip said:
Anything has the potential to harm someone, even vegetables.

---

Quote:

---

The Cypher said:
Yep.  I'm taking it as a premise that we should ban things; and then questioning which things we ought to ban.

---

No, actually the original discussion was if it is morally wrong or right so sell illegal drugs, and then it extended to nuclear weapons.

Quote:

---

Whether or not we should ban anything at all is a separate argument, and as I've already stated I'd prefer it if only I had possession of destructive implements. 

---