JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: supton
In a similar analog (will you call it poor also?) many are willing to deal with the fact that, yes, some guns will be stolen, yes, some high capacity weapons will be used in crimes. But it's better to retain old-school notions of the right to bear arms (the argument against gun bans in general), the capacity for self defense (the argument against further restrictions against conceal carry and/or a complete handgun ban), and the right to own military firearms (as I think was envisioned by the founding fathers "a well-regulated militia" statement, which would have meant access and knowledge and usage of military arms by the common man), than it is to remove them because of misuse.
Where have I denied self defense? Im a strong supporter of DCV Heller, as an example. Where have I denied military style rifles? I have an AR type rifle.
I question however the extremes of this stuff on either side.
But these analogies are silly, because after everyone and their brother saying how guns dont kill people, people kill people and criminals kill people, well then we need to consider the aspect of in the hands of the crazy person who IS the problem and doing the deed, if fire extinguishers kill people. How many violent fire extinguisher attacks have occurred? What do criminals do when they steal fire extinguishers.
The reaslity is that the answers to those questions is nothing... There are no violent fire extinguisher attacks, and even if there were, the end casualty would be really low... As opposed to a stolen gun which could spray bullets and is used as an amplifier for getting to a certain end in criminal acts.
In a similar analog (will you call it poor also?) many are willing to deal with the fact that, yes, some guns will be stolen, yes, some high capacity weapons will be used in crimes. But it's better to retain old-school notions of the right to bear arms (the argument against gun bans in general), the capacity for self defense (the argument against further restrictions against conceal carry and/or a complete handgun ban), and the right to own military firearms (as I think was envisioned by the founding fathers "a well-regulated militia" statement, which would have meant access and knowledge and usage of military arms by the common man), than it is to remove them because of misuse.
Where have I denied self defense? Im a strong supporter of DCV Heller, as an example. Where have I denied military style rifles? I have an AR type rifle.
I question however the extremes of this stuff on either side.
But these analogies are silly, because after everyone and their brother saying how guns dont kill people, people kill people and criminals kill people, well then we need to consider the aspect of in the hands of the crazy person who IS the problem and doing the deed, if fire extinguishers kill people. How many violent fire extinguisher attacks have occurred? What do criminals do when they steal fire extinguishers.
The reaslity is that the answers to those questions is nothing... There are no violent fire extinguisher attacks, and even if there were, the end casualty would be really low... As opposed to a stolen gun which could spray bullets and is used as an amplifier for getting to a certain end in criminal acts.
