If necessary there is always the option of public transportation or jobs setting up work dorms China-style. It could be inconvenient or more expensive, but the job could get done. The same can't be said for removing a violent threat.
Self-defense never provided for my family, going to work has... and I pretty much need a car to get to work unfortunately.
There is nothing inherently wrong with killing. Self-defense is just as important an ability, if not much more so, than vehicular transportation.
If necessary there is always the option of public transportation or jobs setting up work dorms China-style. It could be inconvenient or more expensive, but the job could get done. The same can't be said for removing a violent threat.
I don't know but it sounds about as plausible as organizing a bunch of fat angry gun nuts and overthrowing the government of the United States because it is too tyrannical.
Well, it's nice of you to contradict yourself in two sentences.
If there is nothing inherently wrong with killing, why the need for the ability to kill in self-defence?
Hey man, you're the one who started talking about it.
Well, it's nice of you to contradict yourself in two sentences.
If there is nothing inherently wrong with killing, why the need for the ability to kill in self-defence?
If people = problem
then
people + guns = problem + guns = worst problem, no?
LOLWell, it's nice of you to contradict yourself in two sentences.
If there is nothing inherently wrong with killing, why the need for the ability to kill in self-defence?
lolwut? Not all killing is wrong (self-defense). Some killing is (spree killing). If killing was inherently wrong, both would be wrong. How is that hard to understand?
If killing wasn't inherently wrong, why would you feel the need to stop someone from killing you?
After all, there is nothing inherently wrong with it and so no need to prevent it from happening.
Here are some things that I would like state:
Mental Evaluation is a very difficult task. A single test to evaluate mental health is insufficient, especially in regards to owning firearms. Even the mentally unbalanced can have a good day with a psychiatrist.
Not all murderers/killers are deemed mentally unfit by a psychiatrist i.e. not every killer can get away with pleading insanity.
Guns should be a privilege, much like driving a car is.
lolwut? Not all killing is wrong (self-defense). Some killing is (spree killing). If killing was inherently wrong, both would be wrong. How is that hard to understand?
Yep, you don't know what inherent means.
I don't think guns and cars are fair comparisons either. However, I do think both should be privileges - gun ownership should NOT be a right.
Frankly, I really don't feel comfortable with everyday citizens owning guns. I supposedly work with some of the brightest people in the world and there is no way in hell I would trust some of them with my health, let alone a gun. Consequently, I wouldn't trust an everyday guy on the street with a gun either.
You don't even understand the point you are trying to make.
I don't think guns and cars are fair comparisons either. However, I do think both should be privileges - gun ownership should NOT be a right.
Frankly, I really don't feel comfortable with everyday citizens owning guns. I supposedly work with some of the brightest people in the world and there is no way in hell I would trust some of them with my health, let alone a gun. Consequently, I wouldn't trust an everyday guy on the street with a gun either.
Tell the people in CT, because getting a gun there is probably already just as hard as getting a driver's license. One of them is still a "right," the other one a "privilege."
But really, don't compare cars and guns. People don't like that.
lolno. It's pretty clear. Either you don't know what "inherent" means or you think that "Some killing isn't wrong" --> "No killing is wrong" is a logical jump to make.
But I'll restate it in another way that is easier to understand. A gun has one primary function: to shoot things. Of all the possible things to shoot, some are knife-wielding house invaders. Others are six year old children. Therefore, the primary function of a gun is not limited to shooting of a morally wrong nature. As such, stating that guns lack "uses beyond their ability to kill and maim" is irrelevant because that very use is a perfectly moral and acceptable one.
guns aren't a right. arms to protect yourself is a right.
I know perfectly well what 'inherent' means.
If killing isn't inherently bad, why would you be so desperate to stop the knife-wielding intruder from killing you?
There is nothing inherently bad about killing; so why the need to prevent it from being done to you?
guns aren't a right. arms to protect yourself is a right.