And thus, we gather, you advocate more deadly crime.
LANGUAGE FAIL!!Not you, the language. Did you mean
You advocate deadlier crime?
or
You advocate higher frequency of deadly crime?
There is crime which is not deadly. And there is crime which is deadly. What's his face, and his adulating choir advocate more of the latter. Please, reserve your red letters and grammar checks for actual grammatical errors. But if that's the only argument that you have, then we have a definitive failure in rebuttal, do we not?
This wasn't a grammatical error. It was just worded ambiguously in a way that could have been interpreted in more than one way. I just wanted a clarification.
Regarding guns, though. If you can agree that guns have at least two purposes: one is to kill, and the other is to deter crime (by being pointed at a would be criminal and making them retreat without needing to fire a single shot), then doesn't your "have a purpose" argument fall apart, since guns end up having as much of a purpose as a police officer? And hey, both have been known to accidentally kill people.