4 ms·

What you're saying is a slippery slope argument subject to whoever determines what items put others in danger. You could use your exact same argument that cars

What you're saying is a slippery slope argument subject to whoever determines what items put others in danger. You could use your exact same argument that cars put other people in danger and we should walk everywhere. Or that it's for the collective good that we never leave our house because doing so increases other people's risk of death. Safety is a tyrants best friend. >>You have the right to self defense but the 'freedom' to own something which can kill or maim dozens of others has to be balanced against the overall good of society. Society exists because men with items that can kill or maim others died to create and defend it. I find your viewpoint and willingness to sacrifice your freedom in the name of safety.. a little unaware, ungrateful, and privileged. This current veneer of civilization that you're so privileged to live in exists because of guns and violence and is actually a rarity in the history of humankind. If you want to learn more about this you can go to the library and ask them for a book on the past 100,000 years of human history.

wing-_-nuts 5y ago
>You could use your exact same argument that cars put other people in danger and we should walk everywhere. Or that it's for the collective good that we never leave our house because doing so increases other people's risk of death. Cars are a great example, because we absolutely weigh their costs and benefits. One does not have the 'right' to drive a car. It is a licenced and regulated activity. 18 wheelers are more dangerous than cars, and thus are subject to more restrictive regulation. >Society exists because men with items that can kill or maim others died to create and defend it. What you're talking about here is the state's monopoly on sanctioned violence. Guns are a part of that, but not a requirement. There are plenty of 'beat cops' around the world that discharge their duties without relying on firearms.
- nickthemagicman 5y ago
  > Cars are a great example, because we absolutely weigh their costs and benefits. Exactly. You're SO RIGHT about government weighing the costs and benefits. Which is why the founding fathers made gun rights the second amendment! Isn't it great!? The founding fathers weighed their costs vs benefits and found that the benefits outweighed the costs to such a degree that they deserved a entire amendment. I'm glad we're in agreement about cost vs benefits. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
  - wing-_-nuts 5y ago
    >The founding fathers weighed their costs vs benefits and found that the benefits outweighed the costs to such a degree that they deserved a entire amendment. Right. They weighed the costs and benefits of giving every citizen the right to own a muzzle loading flintlock musket. Such a gun was a tool used to harvest game and defend the homestead. I doubt they would make the same call today when it comes to semi auto weapons with detachable mags. They are designed to kill as many people in as short of a time as possible.
    - nickthemagicman 5y ago
      >> muzzle loader An era when private citizens owned armadas with cannons and artilly that could level entire cities Muzzle loaders. These guys wrote a document that created one of the greatest democracies in the history of humanity, they created a beacon of freedom through out the world that paved the way for one of the greatest improvement in quality of life that humanity has ever seen. Why can't you just trust the experts?

wing-_-nuts 5y ago

>You could use your exact same argument that cars put other people in danger and we should walk everywhere. Or that it's for the collective good that we never leave our house because doing so increases other people's risk of death. Cars are a great example, because we absolutely weigh their costs and benefits. One does not have the 'right' to drive a car. It is a licenced and regulated activity. 18 wheelers are more dangerous than cars, and thus are subject to more restrictive regulation. >Society exists because men with items that can kill or maim others died to create and defend it. What you're talking about here is the state's monopoly on sanctioned violence. Guns are a part of that, but not a requirement. There are plenty of 'beat cops' around the world that discharge their duties without relying on firearms.

nickthemagicman 5y ago
> Cars are a great example, because we absolutely weigh their costs and benefits. Exactly. You're SO RIGHT about government weighing the costs and benefits. Which is why the founding fathers made gun rights the second amendment! Isn't it great!? The founding fathers weighed their costs vs benefits and found that the benefits outweighed the costs to such a degree that they deserved a entire amendment. I'm glad we're in agreement about cost vs benefits. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
- wing-_-nuts 5y ago
  >The founding fathers weighed their costs vs benefits and found that the benefits outweighed the costs to such a degree that they deserved a entire amendment. Right. They weighed the costs and benefits of giving every citizen the right to own a muzzle loading flintlock musket. Such a gun was a tool used to harvest game and defend the homestead. I doubt they would make the same call today when it comes to semi auto weapons with detachable mags. They are designed to kill as many people in as short of a time as possible.
  - nickthemagicman 5y ago
    >> muzzle loader An era when private citizens owned armadas with cannons and artilly that could level entire cities Muzzle loaders. These guys wrote a document that created one of the greatest democracies in the history of humanity, they created a beacon of freedom through out the world that paved the way for one of the greatest improvement in quality of life that humanity has ever seen. Why can't you just trust the experts?