Changes

265 bytes added ,  19:32, December 24, 2007
Line 257: Line 257:     
:::::: That's a hair-splitting distinction you're trying to draw.  I'm not sure there is any distinction in practice between (a) being a reason for something occurring and (b) being a reason that the same thing was not prevented.  Without the gun control, it would have been difficult or impossible for the genocides to occur.  It seems to me you may seek to cling to gun control without admitting that it facilitated genocide.  With all due respect, I'd suggest letting go of the gun control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:17, 24 December 2007 (EST)
 
:::::: That's a hair-splitting distinction you're trying to draw.  I'm not sure there is any distinction in practice between (a) being a reason for something occurring and (b) being a reason that the same thing was not prevented.  Without the gun control, it would have been difficult or impossible for the genocides to occur.  It seems to me you may seek to cling to gun control without admitting that it facilitated genocide.  With all due respect, I'd suggest letting go of the gun control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:17, 24 December 2007 (EST)
 +
 +
:::::::My confusion was really just a matter of semantics. I interpreted "gun control has led to genocide" to mean that the firearms regulations caused people to seek to eliminate an entire ethnicity. Thanks, [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 14:32, 24 December 2007 (EST)
102

edits