|
|
 Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Their purpose is not to prevent crime or make people safer. People have a fundamental right to protect themselves and an obligation to resist the government when necessary.
protect themselves = make themselves safer or am I missing something?
In a way, whether it's a right or not is a moot point. If I thought my LE (life expectancy) was higher with a gun, I would have one, legal or not. The real reason I don't want one is because it is a -LE move. If I had a contract on my head or in a world were most thieves kill you first and rob you after, it'd be a +LE move so I would have one, regardless of what the law says.
The problem I have though is that the people who fool themselves thinking otherwise or just owe/carry guns "because it's their right" also decrease my LE and the one of others. Think accident, road rage, domestic dispute, bar fight, civilians in shootouts with robbers who would not otherwise have fired a shot, people killed because they are wrongly thought of trying to break in, loonies or unstables who can just walk into a shop, buy a gun and shoot whoever, etc
So the question becomes whether people should have a right to do something that endangers other people's life without actually protecting theirs, and I think the answer is no. As was said above though, the most important thing is not to remove their right but show them how to calculate their LE equation, and the rest will follow suit.
Far less people would get unduly shot (and, more importantly, my family and I would have less chance to get unduly shot) if only some hardcore criminals and the cops had firearms, as opposed to everyone including me having one.
As for the argument about resisting the government, it is downright ridiculous in today's America. There is zero reason to think that it will ever come to that, and if it did the citizens wouldn't stand a damn chance anyway, unless the army sided with them, in which case civilians still wouldn't need weapons.
|
Reply With Quote