Well, just to point out what should be mind-numbingly obvious: Gun deaths don't have to happen. Unlike heart attacks or strokes, gun deaths caused by legal licensed firearms can be stopped. (I'm not going to touch the issue of whether they should be with a ten foot pole).
Why not compare it to some other things we've banned: Drink or drugged driving, Assault, leaving children in cars without windows open? Some things are preventable and can be stopped. It's nothing to do with a "delusion", it's a fact. Having less guns, makes it less likely to be shot by a legally owned firearm. End of story. Whatever points you have on whether guns are good or bad, it's got nothing to do with this: Pro-gun people think that the risk is more than justified by their arguments (Which, before someone points it out in an annoying quote because they didn't read my second sentence, includes the defense against illegally owned guns and criminals), and Anti-gun people think that the risk is not justified. These arguments have merits and failings. Strawmanning everyone is just stupid.
Now, there's plenty of things in the same boat: Drugs can be dangerous, and whether they should be used or sold is an issue of a similar nature. In the end, the question is, is the risk too great, that we must sacrifice a freedom, or is the benefit worth the risk?
Strawmanning people you disagree with as wrong because you've got a bigger issue you can point to is a non-sequitur. A red herring. A straw man. A failure to understand statistics. It's just an epic fail. So I'd ask OP: What rhetorical questions we should ask to give ourselves the delusion of a valid logical or rational opinion?
Why not compare it to some other things we've banned: Drink or drugged driving, Assault, leaving children in cars without windows open? Some things are preventable and can be stopped. It's nothing to do with a "delusion", it's a fact. Having less guns, makes it less likely to be shot by a legally owned firearm. End of story. Whatever points you have on whether guns are good or bad, it's got nothing to do with this: Pro-gun people think that the risk is more than justified by their arguments (Which, before someone points it out in an annoying quote because they didn't read my second sentence, includes the defense against illegally owned guns and criminals), and Anti-gun people think that the risk is not justified. These arguments have merits and failings. Strawmanning everyone is just stupid.
Now, there's plenty of things in the same boat: Drugs can be dangerous, and whether they should be used or sold is an issue of a similar nature. In the end, the question is, is the risk too great, that we must sacrifice a freedom, or is the benefit worth the risk?
Strawmanning people you disagree with as wrong because you've got a bigger issue you can point to is a non-sequitur. A red herring. A straw man. A failure to understand statistics. It's just an epic fail. So I'd ask OP: What rhetorical questions we should ask to give ourselves the delusion of a valid logical or rational opinion?