{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
1/18/2013 1:40:38 AM
18
[quote][quote]I do not think 'fun' is a sufficient reason to balance out the danger of allowing such weapons to continue to be available to the public.[/quote]I do.
Or, more specifically, I think the freedom to own automatic weapons is worth the human cost.[/quote]
English
-
Edited by Ryan: 1/18/2013 2:32:13 AMThat isn't exactly an argument. It is just a statement of your personal value. Someone could just as easily hold that the freedom to drive drunk is worth the human cost.
-
Well those people are actively trying to impose force upon others. People with Baph's opinion just want to be left alone, so anyone who disagrees with that decision better have a damn good reason. It's a pretty crucial distinction.
-
Exactly. What business is it of yours if I have an automatic gun or not? Why [i]shouldn't[/i] I be able to have one?
-
Because we're Canadian and nobody has guns up here except for hunting rifles :P
-
Edited by Ric_Adbur: 1/18/2013 8:11:35 PMIt isn't about you specifically. The idea is that it's impossible to catch every unstable or otherwise dangerous individual in a free society before they decide to commit a terrible act. As such, it's much easier to remove the more dangerous tools they might attempt to procure to carry out such acts from their reach, so as to lessen the potential impact they might cause when some of them inevitably do act. The only way to accomplish that is to remove those tools from the reach of all regular citizens, since, again, we can't know specifically who all such people might be. Essentially, you would be trading in your 'right' as a sane and ethical individual to own such a device (a device, I might add, that nobody outside the military or law enforcement actually needs) to obtain a certain degree of increased public safety, albeit of the kind that will only be relevant at random, unpredictable intervals.
-
Edited by Florence: 1/19/2013 10:19:52 PMYou wouldn't be ''trading'' it, you'd be having it removed involuntarily.
-
That's an excellent argument, I just don't agree that it's a good enough trade.
-
What do you gain from having an automatic rifle?
-
I don't see why that's relevant. It isn't about the gun, it's about the freedom to have the gun.
-
Edited by Seggi: 1/20/2013 2:15:39 AMAnd the cost of losing the freedom to have the weapon is dependent on what the benefits of possessing that weapon are. Similarly, losing the freedom to drive while under the influence of alcohol, you lose the convenience of being able to operate your own vehicle to return it home, or avoid using a taxi and so on, but this cost is outweighed by the benefit of not being killed in a car crash. The arbitrary 'right to drive drunk' carries no weight per se.
-
I value the freedom to own a gun independently from the value of having the gun itself. I have also yet to be convinced that trading away that freedom is more beneficial. As far as the car analogy goes, it's more like banning the possession of cars that are capable of speeds in excess of 50 km/h because most traffic collisions take place above that speed.
-
If cars had no practical use, they would be banned. An arbitrary freedom is completely useless per se, and the fact that you value it is, I think, quite absurd.
-
I value freedom from government control as a law abiding citizen. Prohibiting me from owning guns when I have done nothing wrong is an intrusion of government authority into my life without cause, which is in itself a bad thing. An arbitrary freedom isn't useless as it places barriers around a governments ability to act. It shouldn't be whether or not I NEED that freedom, it should be about whether or not the government NEEDS to restrict it, and I don't think that it does in this particular instance.
-
Edited by Ric_Adbur: 1/21/2013 7:31:21 AMBut you have yet to successfully argue [i]why[/i] this particular freedom doesn't need to be restricted.
-
The freedom to own guns does not need to be restricted because I do not believe it does enough harm to society to warrant it's restriction. Gun violence in America is falling, entirely independently of gun control measures. I see no reason why we need to resort to taking away freedoms to fix a problem that is decreasing in severity on its own, and isn't that significant of a problem in the first place.
-
I shouldn't have to. You're the ones wanting to take it away, so it's your job to make the case for it. Freedom should be the default, since it is simply the lack of restriction as opposed to the active effort that is restricting it.
-
Edited by Ric_Adbur: 1/21/2013 8:23:56 AMYou [i]do[/i] have to, though. I've already made my case. Now it's your turn. That's how debating works. You don't just get to sit there and give me vague and unsupported dismissals while continuing to tell me to argue at you more after I already have. Participate or don't; let's not have any more of this wishy-washy crap.
-
But I wanted to discuss it :(
