3 ms·
I agree that if we limit firearms we limit harm from firearms. Tell me why we should stop at firearms? Fewer children would meet pedophiles online if we didn't
by sarvinc 14y ago
I agree that if we limit firearms we limit harm from firearms. Tell me why we should stop at firearms? Fewer children would meet pedophiles online if we didn't have an Internet. Fewer people would die in car accidents if we didn't have cars. 35.9 million people died within a year of being in a car accident [0]. Lets revisit this discussion when as many people are dying of gunshot wounds in the US as die of a car accident.
[0] www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.pdf
- bonaldi 14y agoIn all these cases, you measure benefits against costs. Costs (eg negative impact, not price) of limiting firearms: low, mostly political. Costs of limiting cars: catastrophic, economy-devastating. That's why we should stop at firearms.
- sarvinc 14y ago> Costs (eg negative impact, not price) of limiting firearms: low, mostly political. Costs of limiting cars: catastrophic, economy-devastating. Not sure where you get the idea that the cost of limiting firearms is low or that the cost of limiting cars is high. Mass transportation, tele-communication etc. seem like viable solutions and because "for the children." > That's why we should stop at firearms. That's why we should stop giving our rights and freedoms away.