So sad. In places without guns no one ever gets angry at someone else and reacts violently. Ask any European and they’ll tell you that motorists never fly into fits of rage and attack each other without the specter of guns. The NRA and Fox fake those YouTube dash cam videos of people being beat or getting in fist fights to push their rightist agendas. I suppose it comes down to wether one thinks that the best way to avoid drowning is to let people swim hoping they will educate themselves and use proper judgment while regulating maritime activity as best as able; or to just say that because some people drown we shouldn’t be allowed near water.
2
deleted
· 6 years ago
I call complete bullshit. I've seen road rage first hand when I was in Argentina. The guy just pulled the other guy out of his car and beat him in the street. Road rage is everywhere, not just in America where we have guns.
The number of ways that people are injured or killed by improper or illegal use of a machine are too many to list. The fact someone was injured by the criminal action of another in itself is not a serious argument as the same logic would apply to all crime. Why not deny the privilege of driving to anyone who might even possibly drink and drive or cause fatal accidents? Yes- cars have more uses- but the intended use is a qualifier. That weapon was not intended to shoot at other drivers nor is it allowed by law- and the “intended use” argument goes against the logic that the primary factor of consideration in danger isn’t intended or legal use but real world damage by misuse. That said while it is a right to own a gun- no right exists that isn’t somehow qualified by law or restricted. Not anyone should be allowed to own a weapon or specific weapons by law. When an item or right is abused or used improperly the law must step in and regulate it in attempts to eliminate or reduce such abuse
Self-defense and, by extension, access to effective arms, are natural rights. Is anyone required to exercise any right? Is any right without limit? No on both counts. But any attempt to deny those rights to the masses is an affront to everything a free and just society is meant to stand for. You don't like the risk of rights being abused? There's plenty of countries that do not respect those rights, many of them even speak English, and I'm sure they'd be glad to have anyone who respects their land and culture. Hell, some of them even accept those who don't.
You're explaining why people should be allowed to keep a gun for self defense in relation to this event to someone who has a .38 revolver in her room. I made a wordplay joke. Assuming every little thing is an attack on your rights is asinine.
No, I'm simply expanding on some points and trying to keep the conversation going. I may not agree with everything guest_ has ever said, but I like reading their input nonetheless.
@bethorian- apologies, text based mediums are hard to convey subtleties, and it’s currently a highly contentious issue @famousone- I’m not sure what points we disagree on? We both seem to be saying the same thing- that the universal denial of the right to weapons of self defense is an affront to freedom that most people wouldn’t apply to freedoms they regularly exercise that also carry responsibility and potential risk to others; and that like any right there are limits and responsibilities to their exercise. I didn’t stipulate what or how, but we both seem to agree that having no regulation on who can posses weapons or what kind they may posses is insanity. So I don’t see the disagreement?
Comments