Why Are People So Stupid With Guns?

[Steve]

Dude think about it what's more dangerous someone who screaming to the world they are gonna hurt you or someone who puts up a facade only for you to realize you got a bullet in your stomach before you even have a chance to react?

Ah. So if it’s lunatic with a gun or lunatic without a gun, yes, the one with the gun is more dangerous. I’m tracking now.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

The tricky question is how do we resolve conflicts between two inalienable rights? When your right to own a gun directly impacts my right to life….

From a self defense perspective, it makes things difficult.


They are literally designed to kill things. They’re all dangerous, by design.

Fear is what drives this perspective. My right to own a gun only impacts your right to life if I abuse my right to own a gun, you abuse my right to life, or I see someone abusing your right to life and intervene. I think I get what you are trying to say, but what if I abuse my right to own a kitchen knife or throw rocks? It’s easy to get into the weeds here, but I am somewhat sympathetic to people who are afraid in their daily life.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Ah. So if it’s lunatic with a gun or lunatic without a gun, yes, the one with the gun is more dangerous. I’m tracking now.

This part I am with you. Those adjudicated to be mentally unwell and a danger to others. Extreme or intransigent viewpoints on either side of the argument are not useful to finding a way to progress.

 

[Steve]

I agree, and in now way am I trying to make this a political discussion.

But, making this a country specific topic, gun ownership is a foundational issue, and is a directive in how our freedoms were created and how they are and will be maintained in the future.

I do see how different the viewpoint and perspective gets the farther and farther away our country gets from being in a major conflict. For example, 9/11 may the considered the most recent 'major' conflict (although I would disagree). Most everyone was ready to arm up and defend their country when it happened. It is/was a raw, carnal feeling that has Great value and really puts a exclamation point on why people should be allowed to carry.

22-years later, for several reasons, it is extremely grey what the climate is on who/how many would stand up and defend this country.

Parsing it down to the state level (and by the way, many of our states are the same size as some countries), there are inalienable rights concerning defending a states borders. And to take it a step farther, to defending an individuals curtilage. Yes, they are regulated at the federal level first, state second, and municipality third.

It will always be a hot topic. And it should be IMHO. That is the only way to balance the equation. But it is imperative to include ALL the variables when doing so, not just the emotional, sensationalized media images.

if we want to consider the question asked earlier about what has changed in the last 40 years, I’d recommend starting with how gun owners fundamentally view gun ownership, and where that has come from. IMO.

 

[Fungus]

The tricky question is how do we resolve conflicts between two inalienable rights? When your right to own a gun directly impacts my right to life….

Yes, this conflict naturally exists in nature too. Many life forms have nature-given rights to try to survive, but resources are limited. The question for me is more, what methods of handling the conflicts de we endorse.

gun ownership is a foundational issue, and is a directive in how our freedoms were created and how they are and will be maintained in the future.

I'm curious, does this perspective/philosophy equate "freedom" with "peace" in your enviroment? or do you by freedom refer to freedom to carry arms, as someone wrote in naother thread, but sure if pun was intended or not (some of these perspectives are I think harder to understand for europeans, this is why i ask).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Thread locked pending staff review for political content.

_____________
Gerry Seymour
MT Moderator
@Gerry Seymour