If you think about it, the NRA's two most famous bumper-sticker catchphrases — "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" and "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" — are complete contradictions of each other's reasoning.
In other words, if a gun is used to commit a crime, it deserves none of the blame, because it's just a tool, but if a gun is used to prevent a crime, it deserves all of the credit, because no other tool would have done?
Someone please explain to me the logic in which a hammer is just as effective a murder weapon as a gun, but it's useless as a self-defensive weapon compared to a gun.
How can both of these things be correct?
How can both of these things be correct?
It's almost as if the NRA doesn't care whether these talking points are logically consistent as long as the conclusion is "buy more guns".
