3 ms·
No, that's a strawman. You have to draw the line somewhere, and most of the civilized world agrees that not giving general public access to devices that can ki
by tifik 4y ago
No, that's a strawman. You have to draw the line somewhere, and most of the civilized world agrees that not giving general public access to devices that can kill by twitching ones finger, is not above that line. Same as requiring people to wear seatbelts.
Your fallacious argument aside though, you are correct, you can provide support resources without taking rights of others away, and in the US that is the case. Congrats. I will stay in a country where, if I am ever depressed, the support structures have a higher chance of saving me, because it will take more than moving my finger by 2mm to literally explode my head.
- imgabe 4y agoRestricting access to guns is not part of a support structure, it is a control structure. Maybe you appreciate the government controlling you in that way, most Americans are more independent minded. If you didn't want to be around guns, you can simply ... not own one. Many Americans don't, it's not like it's required.
- tifik 4y agoWhere I live, I can own a gun if I want to, provided I pass rigorous psychological examination, and repeat it every few years. But because there is practically no guns on the streets, I dont feel the need to. Admittedly, it would be difficult to reconsile my opinions on gun ownership with the need for personal safety if I lived in the US. But yes, I absolutely do appreciate there being a control structure that prevents psychopaths from going to walmarts artillery section and shooting up a school every other week. Following the same fallacy you used previously, should we abolish all laws because everyone should be able to excercise their free will completely unrestricted?