3 ms·
Change "one person" to "all persons" and you have the heart of the second amendment argument. You may disagree, but it is not an unreasonable position.
by noonespecial 7y ago
Change "one person" to "all persons" and you have the heart of the second amendment argument.
You may disagree, but it is not an unreasonable position.
- austhrow743 7y agoOh absolutely but when you phrase it like that you risk getting bogged down in the minutiae of irrelevant details like the exact impact removing/adding more guns would have on a society's homicide rate, like that's at all relevant to what is at it's core a disagreement on principles. Best to express your stance in the most extreme way possible so you don't get stuck in detail quibbles. A disarmed society is an enslaved society.
- noonespecial 7y agoThat's the tough part isn't it? It's just a cost benefit analysis. There's no "one true way". The Americans chose one end of the spectrum, the English the other. Both approaches worked out reasonably well. That's not something either side really wants to hear these days.