I think your argument sounds good until you look at other countries. I don’t know for sure but I’m guessing there aren’t more violent attacks on vulnerable people in countries that have gun bans. I think it’s possible you’re exaggerating the fear of attack without factoring in the overall safety benefits of removing so much gun violence. I’m convinced that if it could be done the benefits would fast out weigh the draw backs.
obviously the reality is that actually accomplishing this task in a country whose identity is so pathetically attached to guns is the impossible task. there’s already just too many gun nuts so that ship had long sailed.
regardless, to me there’s no question whether it would be better or worse for there to be more people with guns.
Oh, no, it’s just that I don’t weigh all violence as equal. I have a different value system then you do when it comes to interpersonal violence and that’s okay that we disagree there.
To me, removing a potential victim’s ability to protect themselves isn’t worth removing a potential victim from being attacked at all. To me, they’re not a 1:1 trade. You probably disagree, and that’s okay, but I place a high value on an individual’s agency, to the point where I’m willing to let them live in a slightly more dangerous society to get it.
This trade-off exists in all areas of life, and I don’t necessarily side with personal freedom in all of them (I would ban cars if I could), but I do in this area.
so selfishness then. got it. your desires for yourself are more important than what’s better for everyone. you can’t pretend this is your choice for others. it’s definitely for yourself.
Uh, no, it’s so that everyone has the ability to make the choice for themselves. We could force everyone to live in padded cells for their own safety, but we both agree that’s ridiculous. We’re just arguing over what is and is not an acceptable trade-off between safety and agency.
in this case there’s only really 2 options: better for society or better for yourself. you can’t argue it’s better for everyone to have the choice to own killing weapons when it’s clear that position results in more gun violence and death.
Let’s agree your position is correct, I don’t view my position as a personal one in the slightest. I don’t even own firearms. But, let’s say you’re correct.
Then let’s ban cars. And knives. And motorcycles. And contact sports. And trampolines. And swimming pools.
Exceptions can be made for licensed professionals who have passed a rigorous training and background check process or (given the correct context) use under the supervision of such a professional.
All things that are useful to individuals but bad for society because they cause significant amounts of harm. The value generated by these things can be created by licensed individuals or made unnecessary in various ways. We don’t need the general population to have any of these things. And yet, if you find these suggestions absurd then by your own argument there is value in giving freedom to the individual despite harm to society.
I think your argument sounds good until you look at other countries. I don’t know for sure but I’m guessing there aren’t more violent attacks on vulnerable people in countries that have gun bans. I think it’s possible you’re exaggerating the fear of attack without factoring in the overall safety benefits of removing so much gun violence. I’m convinced that if it could be done the benefits would fast out weigh the draw backs.
obviously the reality is that actually accomplishing this task in a country whose identity is so pathetically attached to guns is the impossible task. there’s already just too many gun nuts so that ship had long sailed.
regardless, to me there’s no question whether it would be better or worse for there to be more people with guns.
Oh, no, it’s just that I don’t weigh all violence as equal. I have a different value system then you do when it comes to interpersonal violence and that’s okay that we disagree there.
To me, removing a potential victim’s ability to protect themselves isn’t worth removing a potential victim from being attacked at all. To me, they’re not a 1:1 trade. You probably disagree, and that’s okay, but I place a high value on an individual’s agency, to the point where I’m willing to let them live in a slightly more dangerous society to get it.
This trade-off exists in all areas of life, and I don’t necessarily side with personal freedom in all of them (I would ban cars if I could), but I do in this area.
so selfishness then. got it. your desires for yourself are more important than what’s better for everyone. you can’t pretend this is your choice for others. it’s definitely for yourself.
Uh, no, it’s so that everyone has the ability to make the choice for themselves. We could force everyone to live in padded cells for their own safety, but we both agree that’s ridiculous. We’re just arguing over what is and is not an acceptable trade-off between safety and agency.
in this case there’s only really 2 options: better for society or better for yourself. you can’t argue it’s better for everyone to have the choice to own killing weapons when it’s clear that position results in more gun violence and death.
Let’s agree your position is correct, I don’t view my position as a personal one in the slightest. I don’t even own firearms. But, let’s say you’re correct.
Then let’s ban cars. And knives. And motorcycles. And contact sports. And trampolines. And swimming pools.
Exceptions can be made for licensed professionals who have passed a rigorous training and background check process or (given the correct context) use under the supervision of such a professional.
All things that are useful to individuals but bad for society because they cause significant amounts of harm. The value generated by these things can be created by licensed individuals or made unnecessary in various ways. We don’t need the general population to have any of these things. And yet, if you find these suggestions absurd then by your own argument there is value in giving freedom to the individual despite harm to society.