2 ms·

You may have missed one of my posts. I think we can both agree that certain people should be excluded from owning firearms. Because of the risks involved, I'm v

by KGIII 9y ago

You may have missed one of my posts. I think we can both agree that certain people should be excluded from owning firearms. Because of the risks involved, I'm very much in favor of testing for competency, safety, security, and sanity. Right now, we have a problem. Banning and trying to confiscate a firearm type is not a reasonable solution. Hell, even defining pistol in a useful way is damned difficult. If need factors into it, we don't need any of our rights. Humans survive in totalitarian regimes. Place reasonable restrictions and work on the social issues. We both agree reasonable restrictions are a good idea. I submit that your definition of reasonable is different than my own. It is not okay to take away my liberties because you're afraid of a statistical outlier. Yes, being an outlier sucks, but that's not a good reason to go banning things that scare you. It's great that you said you're not sure that handguns are needed. That means you're not sure they should be prohibited. If nothing else, that gives us room for discussion. Liberty is about having the lawful option. It's not about needs. If it were, they'd call them necessities.

kbenson 9y ago
> You may have missed one of my posts... I'm not really trying to hammer you on this, I'm more testing out this argument to see how it goes. This is more to find if there's some obvious thing I'm missing. > Right now, we have a problem. Banning and trying to confiscate a firearm type is not a reasonable solution. Well, we already ban other types. It's not going to solve anything, but that doesn't mean it might not help in some small way. > I submit that your definition of reasonable is different than my own. I was just trying to figure out how you defined reasonable. It's easy for people to say "it's not reasonable" when they really mean "I don't want to think about it in a reasonable manner and explain myself". I'm not accusing you of that. > It is not okay to take away my liberties because you're afraid of a statistical outlier. Well, some of your liberties are already denied you, depending on interpretation. Is the important thing that they are "taken away", so you feel it, or that they are denied, in which case whether they exist right now is moot. > If nothing else, that gives us room for discussion. That's all this is! :) I'm not sure it would help even if it could be implemented, but I thought it was interesting to discuss. Thanks for discussing it with me. :)

by KGIII 9y ago

kbenson 9y ago

> You may have missed one of my posts... I'm not really trying to hammer you on this, I'm more testing out this argument to see how it goes. This is more to find if there's some obvious thing I'm missing. > Right now, we have a problem. Banning and trying to confiscate a firearm type is not a reasonable solution. Well, we already ban other types. It's not going to solve anything, but that doesn't mean it might not help in some small way. > I submit that your definition of reasonable is different than my own. I was just trying to figure out how you defined reasonable. It's easy for people to say "it's not reasonable" when they really mean "I don't want to think about it in a reasonable manner and explain myself". I'm not accusing you of that. > It is not okay to take away my liberties because you're afraid of a statistical outlier. Well, some of your liberties are already denied you, depending on interpretation. Is the important thing that they are "taken away", so you feel it, or that they are denied, in which case whether they exist right now is moot. > If nothing else, that gives us room for discussion. That's all this is! :) I'm not sure it would help even if it could be implemented, but I thought it was interesting to discuss. Thanks for discussing it with me. :)