Well-said, John. Well-said enough, in fact, that I will openly declare my intent to rip it off and use it.
When I find myself faced with this particular argument, I usually counter with something like this:
Anti-Gunner: If banning assault weapons saves even one life, we have to do it.
Spats: So you support banning assault weapons to save even one life? (
The litigator in me likes to make sure that the Anti-Gunner is "married to" the argument and can't wiggle out.)
AG: Absolutely.
Spats: Then you'd surely agree that there are other things that should be banned if banning them saves even one life, right?
AG: Sure.
Spats: Like cigarettes.
AG: Yeah, sure.
Spats: And alcohol.
AG: Well, I don't know.
Spats: And cars.
AG: Now, wait a minute.
Spats: But I thought you said you support bans if a ban will save even one life.
AG: Yeah, but those things aren't designed to kill.
Spats: Well, each one of them kills more people than assault weapons.
AG: Yeah, but . . .
Spats: But what? You have chosen to treat firearms different than other inanimate objects, presumably because they scare you. Your fear is a bad reason to strip me of my rights.