In gun control debates, it appears that many gun control advocates are saying that they don't want to ban guns, they just want to use the government to enact specific limits/regulations.
But this is where we encounter a major problem. When government enacts gun laws, then those people inside government, in order to get others to comply with those gun laws, ultimately have to force this compliance by doing what? Well, by threatening peaceful people with guns.
Threatening peaceful people with guns is exactly what everyone claims they don't want though, isn't it?
Whether we like it or not, we must admit that in order to control/regulate guns, ultimately guns must be used.
Therefore, the main reason why government gun control debates never end is that the debate itself contains an inherent logical contradiction.
Thoughts?
