4 ms·
The topic was quality of life and they expanded this to "security" which includes the ability to maintain that quality of life to a reasonable degree. There ar
by hnbad 3y ago
The topic was quality of life and they expanded this to "security" which includes the ability to maintain that quality of life to a reasonable degree.
There are ways to lose your quality of life against which guns are useful.
There are many more ways against which guns are not useful.
More of the latter apply in the US than e.g. Germany (which has very strict gun laws). Does this mean gun laws in Germany are better? Personally I don't think so. But it does mean the preference for guns over thse other benefits has more to do with ideology than realistic risk assessment.
If you want to complain about derailment, arguably OP derailed the conversation already by bringing gun control into a quality of life discussion and I merely recontextualized that. Especially because they were arguing for a practical necessity of gun ownership rather than merely for gun ownership simply being something they see as a quality of life improvement (like having an 8K TV or the newest generation of gaming consoles).
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoI said the immediate topic. The immediate topic was physical safety. Also, that topic was raised by 3seashells. willcipriano was replying to that point. Then you said: > Arguably the fact that you think owning a gun makes a practical difference in your own safety although a gun can not defend you against health issues or financial hardship (e.g. losing your job, interest/rent hikes) is a point against you. You're using against willcipriano that he was addressing a narrower context. But the narrower context was defined by 3seashells. So your criticism is unfair. (Or, perhaps, mis-aimed.)