Does having the right to own a gun justify innocent mass murders?
In a recent discussion, another user presented this view to me. Is this normal? Do you agree?
Is the mass murder of innocents (man, woman, old, young, blue-collar, white-collar, progressive, conservative, democrat, republican, a teacher in your children's school, the couple living 3 houses down from you, that barista who makes your coffee, any person innocent of any grievance to the shooter, etc.) an acceptable consequence of gun rights?
For better context, here is the comment verbatim. The pertinent sentence is in bold. All other points in the sentence, though related, do not alter the meaning of the pertinent point, but I include them in fairness.
"Yes I would rather everyone have a gun and have mass shootings then have a nation of unarmed. So no one deserves a gun cause some people abuse it? If it wasn't a tool for self defense and protected in the Constitution you might have a solid argument"
Later, when I asked for clarification on that sentence, he responded with:
"Lol no merely a side effect of having a people that can defend themselves."
Which doesn't change anything. So, I ask my question again but using his words:
Is the side effect of innocent mass murders an acceptable consequence of having a people that can defend themselves?
0
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
2 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Gun control as in the restriction for specific high risk individuals to buy firearms is warranted.
However if someone presents no risk to others, they should not be restricted in purchasing a firearm.
"An armed society is a respectful society" Robert A Heinlein.
In all seriousness, people need to be able to defend themselves. There are old couples being bashed and raped in Australia by violent criminals who are not there just to "rob" the house, they are there to terrorise the law abiding citizens for "fun" or "entertainment".
I'd rather put a gun in the hands of a law abiding citizen if they request it, than allow them to be defenceless and at the mercy of the criminal scum.
Lancer
Level 7
Apr 13, 2018
0
There is nothing in the Constitution that says gun ownership can't be regulated. Personally l don't believe a person's right to own a gun trumps my right to go about my business without worrying.if some asshole is going to shoot me because of mental illness or because his life sucks.
Sticks48
Level 9
Apr 13, 2018
2
7 states have bans on assault weapons in place.
@TerriCity lt is a start. I am afraid it is not going to happen fast enough to prevent more of these mass shootings. When Sandy Hook happened l thought that would be the tipping point. When nothing happened l was stunned. Maybe if they had shown the pictures of those children it would have had more impact, but it shouldn't take that. I have to accept the fact that l live in a very sick country.
@Sticks48 Diane Fienstein, said
“This bill won’t stop every mass shooting, but it will begin
removing these weapons of war from our streets.”
“Yes, it will be a long process to reduce the massive supply of these
assault weapons in our country, but we’ve got to start somewhere.”
Since the Assault Weapons ban ended in 2004, the rate of mass murders has been rising more and more rapidly.
It is time to do something meaningful.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.