4 ms·

God, I am so happy that I don't live in the US. Citizens having guns does not increase the security in your society. When will you understand that your high rat

God, I am so happy that I don't live in the US. Citizens having guns does not increase the security in your society. When will you understand that your high rate of people getting killed by guns, compared to other western countries, is caused by your way of thinking that more guns is the solution to all problems?

AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
> God, I am so happy that I don't live in the US. Whatever floats your boat. Enjoy. > Citizens having guns does not increase the security in your society. It is not a mechanism to address a communal goal of increased security of our society. It is a recognition of individual right to defend themselves. >your way of thinking that more guns is the solution to all problems Solution to all problems? We do understand that it is not a solution to all problems, already.
- InitialLastName 9y ago
  > It is a recognition of individual right to defend themselves. It's a recognition of the individual right to feel defended. Statistics (and the results of every other developed country in the world) suggest that feeling is wrong.
  - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
    It's binary, not statistics. Would you grant that there has been at least one case where gun was used successfully to defend oneself? If so, then for that person, that option was worthwhile and exercised successfully. All statistics be damned. And I for one, doesn't want to revert the outcome of that event because of statistics. It is highly individual decision to exercise an option available to them. Success or failure of that option has nothing to do with it, hence statistics of outcome of the event doesn't have a bearing on the option being available. Should I not have right to give $20 to a homeless person? Statistics may say it would most likely get used for drugs. Does that mean society should outlaw donating money to homeless persons? You may publish stats and provide alternative means to help homeless, but individual decisions to donate to homeless can't be outlawed, can it be? http://moralmachine.mit.edu/ http://moralmachine.mit.edu/ What may be moral as group goal as seen by outsider bystander, may be immoral when seen from individual perspective. People are not statistical samples, people are individuals. I associate myself with individual first, before group. I prefer individual safety first, I value it more than some perceived group benefit.

AmIFirstToThink 9y ago

> God, I am so happy that I don't live in the US. Whatever floats your boat. Enjoy. > Citizens having guns does not increase the security in your society. It is not a mechanism to address a communal goal of increased security of our society. It is a recognition of individual right to defend themselves. >your way of thinking that more guns is the solution to all problems Solution to all problems? We do understand that it is not a solution to all problems, already.

InitialLastName 9y ago
> It is a recognition of individual right to defend themselves. It's a recognition of the individual right to feel defended. Statistics (and the results of every other developed country in the world) suggest that feeling is wrong.
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  It's binary, not statistics. Would you grant that there has been at least one case where gun was used successfully to defend oneself? If so, then for that person, that option was worthwhile and exercised successfully. All statistics be damned. And I for one, doesn't want to revert the outcome of that event because of statistics. It is highly individual decision to exercise an option available to them. Success or failure of that option has nothing to do with it, hence statistics of outcome of the event doesn't have a bearing on the option being available. Should I not have right to give $20 to a homeless person? Statistics may say it would most likely get used for drugs. Does that mean society should outlaw donating money to homeless persons? You may publish stats and provide alternative means to help homeless, but individual decisions to donate to homeless can't be outlawed, can it be? http://moralmachine.mit.edu/ http://moralmachine.mit.edu/ What may be moral as group goal as seen by outsider bystander, may be immoral when seen from individual perspective. People are not statistical samples, people are individuals. I associate myself with individual first, before group. I prefer individual safety first, I value it more than some perceived group benefit.