 |
|
I know this is one of the hardest things for you to do, but
Posted on: February 26, 2018 at 10:18:53 CT
ummmm MU
Posts:
44901
Member For:
13.32 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
you don't get to decide the utility of something for other people. Individuals determine utility for their own purposes. For that matter, AR-15s can be used for hunting, for recreation, for defense, for collection purposes, as a store of value, etc.
I keep hearing these ridiculous arguments about how responsible the "vast majority" of gun owners are. That's not why we have limits on freedom in this country, that the "vast majority" of people won't break a law or will be responsible. We have laws because in a lot of cases, it's the very few that can harm the responsible and a primary responsibility of government is to PROTECT THE CITIZENRY.
The vast majority of gun owners are indeed responsible. There are estimates of 100 million gun owners in the United States, and about 11,000 people murdered per year. Even if we don't account for multiple people murdered by one gun owner, that means that 99.999% of gun owners don't murder other people. I don't know, that seems like a "vast majority" to me.
We also don't have laws to protect the many from the few. We allegedly have laws (made allegedly pursuant to a Constitution) to protect the few from the many.
We have limits on speeds on our roads because it's not you or I who's going to weave in and out of lanes at high speed and cause a crash. It's the one out of 500 or one out of 100 that will. And sure the goal is to limit as many accidents and to have the safest roads possible. It's not realistically to have no accidents and 100% safe roads. Not possible by the very nature of human beings driving vehicles at speeds that can seriously hurt other human beings. But the utility of vehicles far outweighs the harm casued by them
So, you acknowledge that those traffic laws don't work? Great point.
You can't make any ****ing sane argument that the utility of an AR-15 outweighs the harm. At least not anymore.
I hate to use a Tigerboard buzzword, but there is a quite a bit projection from you here.
I keep hearing these ridiculous arguments about how responsible the "vast majority" of gun owners are. That's not why we have limits on freedom in this country, that the "vast majority" of people won't break a law or will be responsible. We have laws because in a lot of cases, it's the very few that can harm the responsible and a primary responsibility of government is to PROTECT THE CITIZENRY.
The vast majority of gun owners are indeed responsible. There are estimates of 100 million gun owners in the United States, and about 11,000 people murdered per year. Even if we don't account for multiple people murdered by one gun owner, that means that 99.999% of gun owners don't murder other people. I don't know, that seems like a "vast majority" to me.
We also don't have laws to protect the many from the few. We allegedly have laws (made allegedly pursuant to a Constitution) to protect the few from the many.
We have limits on speeds on our roads because it's not you or I who's going to weave in and out of lanes at high speed and cause a crash. It's the one out of 500 or one out of 100 that will. And sure the goal is to limit as many accidents and to have the safest roads possible. It's not realistically to have no accidents and 100% safe roads. Not possible by the very nature of human beings driving vehicles at speeds that can seriously hurt other human beings. But the utility of vehicles far outweighs the harm casued by them
So, you acknowledge that those traffic laws don't work? Great point.
You can't make any ****ing sane argument that the utility of an AR-15 outweighs the harm. At least not anymore.
I hate to use a Tigerboard buzzword, but there is a quite a bit projection from you here.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
- 
I know this is one of the hardest things for you to do, but - ummmm MU - 2/26 10:18:53