Howard's gun legacy - 200 lives saved a year

@oralloy,

Quote:

Also, you are mistaken to believe that a society with guns is unsafe. America is plenty safe. So are many other countries with high levels of gun ownership. Switzerland for instance. Also most of the Scandinavian countries. Canada and France too I believe.

oralloy :
i assume that you have compared the level of gun crimes in the USA with those in the other countries you mention ??? or are you just assuming that the level is similar ???

2 Replies

@hamburgboy,

He is just assuming.

For instance in Switzerland he ignores the fact that ammunition bought must be registered and the purchaser has to sign for it. It's that whole freedom thing. Having a gun is freedom but ammunition doesn't matter to him I guess.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
It is not that freedom is caused by owning guns; it is that free people can choose to own a gun if they wish to.

People who do not have that choice, are not free.

Complete and utter BS oralloy.

Freedom is not based solely on the ability to buy one thing or another.
If it was then :

You obviously aren't free oralloy because you can't buy contaminated meat at your supermarket if you wanted to.
You aren't free because you can't buy a nuclear weapon.
You aren't free because you can't buy child pornography.

I never said freedom was based SOLELY on the ability to buy something.

The ability to own and carry a gun is only one of many necessary components of a free person.

Nuclear weapons, contaminated meat, and child pornography have nothing to do with gun ownership.

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
You are confusing freedom with security.

I don't think msolga is the one that is confused oralloy.

You are wrong. She clearly described security and freedom as if they were the same thing. They are not.

A society can be both free and safe.

A society can be safe but not free.

A society can be free but not safe.

And a society can be neither free nor safe.

parados wrote:

You are the one making an irrational argument that freedom is based solely on the ability to buy something and being unable to buy it makes you not free.

I never said that freedom was based SOLELY on anything.

For instance, Barack Obama and the DNC made a quite vigorous assault on my freedom back in the 2008 Michigan primary. It didn't involve my gun rights, but rather my right to vote.

1 Reply

@hamburgboy,

hamburgboy wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Also, you are mistaken to believe that a society with guns is unsafe. America is plenty safe. So are many other countries with high levels of gun ownership. Switzerland for instance. Also most of the Scandinavian countries. Canada and France too I believe.

oralloy :
i assume that you have compared the level of gun crimes in the USA with those in the other countries you mention ??? or are you just assuming that the level is similar ???

I have seen the homicide rates for those countries before. In general they are lower than the US.

Of course, there is more to crime than homicide rates. However, I think if crime were so rampant in Canada or a western European country that the country was not a safe place to be, I'd have heard about it on the news.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

For instance in Switzerland he ignores the fact that ammunition bought must be registered and the purchaser has to sign for it.

Of course I ignore it. That bit of trivia couldn't possibly have any connection to any point I was making.

I also didn't pay much attention to the velocity at which the moon orbits the earth.

parados wrote:

It's that whole freedom thing. Having a gun is freedom but ammunition doesn't matter to him I guess.

My post wasn't holding up the Swiss as an example of freedom, but as an example of a society that had a lot of guns and was safe.

That said, the Swiss with their militiamen keeping weapons at home are quite close to the ideal of a free society. However, they still fall short when it comes to some important aspects of freedom, like the ability of the general populace to carry guns in public.

I'd rather there not be any laws requiring people to sign for ammunition when they buy it, but I don't see how it is a direct violation of freedom.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

The ability to own and carry a gun is only one of many necessary components of a free person.

Nuclear weapons, contaminated meat, and child pornography have nothing to do with gun ownership.

But they have everything to do with being free.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
The ability to own and carry a gun is only one of many necessary components of a free person.

Nuclear weapons, contaminated meat, and child pornography have nothing to do with gun ownership.

But they have everything to do with being free.

The right to carry a weapon to defend yourself has long been a right of a free person.

Nuclear weapons are not associated with any rights of free people.

Neither is contaminated meat.

Incidentally, it is not so much that you are prevented from buying contaminated meat as it is that people are prevented from passing contaminated meat off as healthy food. I doubt the government would object to contaminated meat being sold as actual contaminated meat (so long as they were assured that there was not going to be any attempt to pass it off as healthy food). The main reason you can't buy contaminated meat is that there is no market for it.

The point of laws against child pornography is that it harms the children who are used to make it. If there was some form of child porn that did not involve harming children while producing it (drawings or animation, etc.) I'd bet the Supreme Court would say people have the right to have it if they wanted.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

The right to carry a weapon to defend yourself has long been a right of a free person.

You are making the same silly argument oralloy.

Carrying a gun does NOT make one free. It only makes on armed.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
The right to carry a weapon to defend yourself has long been a right of a free person.

You are making the same silly argument oralloy.

Carrying a gun does NOT make one free. It only makes on armed.

Not only did I not say that carrying guns makes people free, I've already clarified in this very thread that that was not what I was saying:

oralloy wrote:

It is not that freedom is caused by owning guns; it is that free people can choose to own a gun if they wish to.

0 Replies

Howard's gun legacy - 200 lives saved a year

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know