Mr. President, do NOT ban assault weapons!

[Kernen]

I use mine to shoot targets. As do most gun owners in the country. That's a perfectly valid reason to shoot.

I'm not disputing that, I'm questioning why so many Americans seem to feel that "perfectly valid reasons to shoot" outweigh preventing the loss of human life.

Yes you are. You said the only reason one would lob lead down range is if it's at somebody. That's patently untrue.

The overwhelming majority of gun owners are law abiding and kill nobody unlawfully. Stripping their rights because of an extreme minority's abuse of those rights is absurd.

[Terruana]

Because, as I originally stated, you prioritise your own access to guns over the protection of human life.

I prioritize freedom to do what I want over everything else, being an individualist and all that's a pretty big part of my beliefs.

Again, if you can come up with some ideas to stop these things from happening and respect our rights I imagine all of us would be on board.

Circling back to my original point though, whether you use your guns for sport, violence or waste disposal, at the end of the day you are still prioritising access to guns over human life.

I see an alternative to the black an white dichotomy, but at the end of the day, I hold mu freedoms well above anything else.

This is my question though. I'm asking why you would prioritise your own freedom to own a piece of hardware over other peoples lives? Isn't that unbelievably selfish?

[Terruana]

I'm not disputing that, I'm questioning why so many Americans seem to feel that "perfectly valid reasons to shoot" outweigh preventing the loss of human life.

Yes you are. You said the only reason one would lob lead down range is if it's at somebody. That's patently untrue.

The overwhelming majority of gun owners are law abiding and kill nobody unlawfully. Stripping their rights because of an extreme minority's abuse of those rights is absurd.

Not if stripping people of those rights would save lives. Your right to own material possessions that are not neccessary for your everyday life/survival should not outweigh other peoples right not to be murdered by someone with a gun.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I prioritize freedom to do what I want over everything else, being an individualist and all that's a pretty big part of my beliefs.

Again, if you can come up with some ideas to stop these things from happening and respect our rights I imagine all of us would be on board.

I see an alternative to the black an white dichotomy, but at the end of the day, I hold mu freedoms well above anything else.

This is my question though. I'm asking why you would prioritise your own freedom to own a piece of hardware over other peoples lives? Isn't that unbelievably selfish?

For me it's not just the right to own a piece of hardware, it's the right to do anything. I fully believe that an individual should be free to do absolutely anything they want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others to do the same. People can say it's selfish or whatever, but that is one of my core beliefs and something I'm not changing. I've given my own (imo) rational ideas on gun control and most people have seemed to agree with me on them, those are what I will keep working towards myself.

[Kernen]

[

This is my question though. I'm asking why you would prioritise your own freedom to own a piece of hardware over other peoples lives? Isn't that unbelievably selfish?

Because is rather live in dangerous freedom than safe slavery. At the end of the day, my first priority is my own well being.

Even if it wasn't, it's still against the very principals of freedoms to restrict the freedom of many over the crimes of a few.

[Miarie]

Yes you are. You said the only reason one would lob lead down range is if it's at somebody. That's patently untrue.

The overwhelming majority of gun owners are law abiding and kill nobody unlawfully. Stripping their rights because of an extreme minority's abuse of those rights is absurd.

Not if stripping people of those rights would save lives. Your right to own material possessions that are not neccessary for your everyday life/survival should not outweigh other peoples right not to be murdered by someone with a gun.

Gun control won't stop murderers from using the black market to buy guns.

[Kernen]

Yes you are. You said the only reason one would lob lead down range is if it's at somebody. That's patently untrue.

The overwhelming majority of gun owners are law abiding and kill nobody unlawfully. Stripping their rights because of an extreme minority's abuse of those rights is absurd.

Not if stripping people of those rights would save lives. Your right to own material possessions that are not neccessary for your everyday life/survival should not outweigh other peoples right not to be murdered by someone with a gun.

I am not a social utilitarian. If I am not actively contributing to taking lives, and merely owning firearms is not an active contribution, I should not be restricted from an action. I am not my brother's keeper. Nor do I want to be. Nor should I be.

[Terruana]

This is my question though. I'm asking why you would prioritise your own freedom to own a piece of hardware over other peoples lives? Isn't that unbelievably selfish?

For me it's not just the right to own a piece of hardware, it's the right to do anything. I fully believe that an individual should be free to do absolutely anything they want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others to do the same. People can say it's selfish or whatever, but that is one of my core beliefs and something I'm not changing. I've given my own (imo) rational ideas on gun control and most people have seemed to agree with me on them, those are what I will keep working towards myself.

That's an incredibly flawed belief. Nobody has a right to do whatever they want and damn the consequences.

[Washington Resistance Army]

For me it's not just the right to own a piece of hardware, it's the right to do anything. I fully believe that an individual should be free to do absolutely anything they want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others to do the same. People can say it's selfish or whatever, but that is one of my core beliefs and something I'm not changing. I've given my own (imo) rational ideas on gun control and most people have seemed to agree with me on them, those are what I will keep working towards myself.

That's an incredibly flawed belief. Nobody has a right to do whatever they want and damn the consequences.

In your opinion. For many of us freedom trumps everything else.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Yes you are. You said the only reason one would lob lead down range is if it's at somebody. That's patently untrue.

The overwhelming majority of gun owners are law abiding and kill nobody unlawfully. Stripping their rights because of an extreme minority's abuse of those rights is absurd.

Not if stripping people of those rights would save lives. Your right to own material possessions that are not neccessary for your everyday life/survival should not outweigh other peoples right not to be murdered by someone with a gun.

Yes actually, mine are.

The only selfish person here is you lad. Who the fuck are you to try and talk down to literally millions of law abiding people who will literally never be involved in a crime?

You don't like firearms? Fine. Separate yourself from them and move on with your life. It's not hard.

[Terruana]

Not if stripping people of those rights would save lives. Your right to own material possessions that are not neccessary for your everyday life/survival should not outweigh other peoples right not to be murdered by someone with a gun.

I am not a social utilitarian. If I am not actively contributing to taking lives, and merely owning firearms is not an active contribution, I should not be restricted from an action.

That's called rationalisation and is a cop-out. You could be preventing further loss of life, but choose not to because it would be inconvenient to you.

[Miarie]

For me it's not just the right to own a piece of hardware, it's the right to do anything. I fully believe that an individual should be free to do absolutely anything they want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others to do the same. People can say it's selfish or whatever, but that is one of my core beliefs and something I'm not changing. I've given my own (imo) rational ideas on gun control and most people have seemed to agree with me on them, those are what I will keep working towards myself.

That's an incredibly flawed belief. Nobody has a right to do whatever they want and damn the consequences.

Unless it defies the laws of physics or any other scientific law, then technically they do.

[Terruana]

That's an incredibly flawed belief. Nobody has a right to do whatever they want and damn the consequences.

In your opinion. For many of us freedom trumps everything else.

The entire concept of written law is an antithesis to the idea that everyone is free to do whatever they like...

[Terruana]

That's an incredibly flawed belief. Nobody has a right to do whatever they want and damn the consequences.

Unless it defies the laws of physics or any other scientific law, then technically they do.

Having the ability to do something does not mean it is your right to do it.

[Kernen]

I am not a social utilitarian. If I am not actively contributing to taking lives, and merely owning firearms is not an active contribution, I should not be restricted from an action.

That's called rationalisation and is a cop-out. You could be preventing further loss of life, but choose not to because it would be inconvenient to you.

Yes I could, but I wont. Because I'm not my brothers keeper. There is a system in place to punish wrongdoers who harm others. That is all that is ultimately necessary. Restrictions that impact law abiding citizens unduly is an obscene use of the legal system.

[Terruana]

Not if stripping people of those rights would save lives. Your right to own material possessions that are not neccessary for your everyday life/survival should not outweigh other peoples right not to be murdered by someone with a gun.

Gun control won't stop murderers from using the black market to buy guns.

It doesn't have to prevent it entirely. If even one life is saved by stopping people from legally purchasing guns, that would be worth the trade of stopping people from owning a piece of hardware with no neccessary purposes.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Or target shoot, or hunt animals.

Shooting targets benefits no-one except your own ego. Hunting animals is hardly a neccessity anymore. Why are these things considered more important than human life?

Target shooting is a social sport that's a lot of fun when you're competing with friends. Hunting animals can be necessary, as some animals don't have enough natural predators left to keep the population in check (leading to motor vehicle accidents, disease, property damage, and starvation among the animals).

What is YOUR suggestion to reduce firearms violence, while still protecting people's rights?

[Miarie]

In your opinion. For many of us freedom trumps everything else.

The entire concept of written law is an antithesis to the idea that everyone is free to do whatever they like...

Written law is a piece of paper backed by a few rich men and armed thugs.

[Terruana]

That's called rationalisation and is a cop-out. You could be preventing further loss of life, but choose not to because it would be inconvenient to you.

Yes I could, but I wont. Because I'm not my brothers keeper. There is a system in place to punish wrongdoers who harm others. That is all that is ultimately necessary. Restrictions that impact law abiding citizens unduly is an obscene use of the legal system.

I disagree, I call it a sensible use of the legal system, and I wouldn't call it undue if taking away your favourite sport would stop someone losing their son/daughter/sister/brother/mother/father etc.

[Washington Resistance Army]

In your opinion. For many of us freedom trumps everything else.

The entire concept of written law is an antithesis to the idea that everyone is free to do whatever they like...

No it isn't. While there's more restrictions than I would like nowadays I'm still largely free to do what I want if I don't infringe on the rights of others. I would say we should entirely remove victimless crimes from being against the law though.

[Terruana]

The entire concept of written law is an antithesis to the idea that everyone is free to do whatever they like...

Written law is a piece of paper backed by a few rich men and armed thugs.

I wonder if you'd feel the same if you weren't able to physically defend yourself due to disability or old age?

[Kernen]

Yes I could, but I wont. Because I'm not my brothers keeper. There is a system in place to punish wrongdoers who harm others. That is all that is ultimately necessary. Restrictions that impact law abiding citizens unduly is an obscene use of the legal system.

I disagree, I call it a sensible use of the legal system, and I wouldn't call it undue if taking away your favourite sport would stop someone losing their son/daughter/sister/brother/mother/father etc.

You might. The best judges in the highest courts of the land disagree.

[Terruana]

The entire concept of written law is an antithesis to the idea that everyone is free to do whatever they like...

No it isn't. While there's more restrictions than I would like nowadays I'm still largely free to do what I want if I don't infringe on the rights of others. I would say we should entirely remove victimless crimes from being against the law though.

Free access to guns is impacting on other people's right to life, so...

[Kernen]

Written law is a piece of paper backed by a few rich men and armed thugs.

I wonder if you'd feel the same if you weren't able to physically defend yourself due to disability or old age?

Thus the value of a self-defense weapon.

[Terruana]

I disagree, I call it a sensible use of the legal system, and I wouldn't call it undue if taking away your favourite sport would stop someone losing their son/daughter/sister/brother/mother/father etc.

You might. The best judges in the highest courts of the land disagree.

Well I guess that would be the first time a supreme court judge was wrong then, wouldn't it?