Nothing Wrong with Guns "As Such"

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Web

Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2003
Messages
48
"It's just that 90% of the population aren't responsible enough to own them."

That's what someone said to me, and I wasn't sure how to answer. I wasn't even sure I disagreed. Maybe not with 90% but at least some percentage of the population are definitely not resposible enough to own them, even though they have the right. Still, I know something's wrong with that thinking. Tell me what you think.
 
Nothing Wrong with Guns "As Such"
"It's just that 90% of the population aren't responsible enough to own them."


Nothing wrong with cars as such....

Nothing wrong with Bibles as such....

Nothing wrong with computers as such....

Nothing wrong with kitchen knives as such....

Nothing wrong with FREEDOM as such....
 
Web said:
"It's just that 90% of the population aren't responsible enough to own them."
Click to expand...

I don't think that figure is very accurate. My opinion is closer to 30%.

But just like the person whose comment is quoted above, my opinion means nothing.

In this country, we assume that citizens are responsible and law abiding, unless they are proven otherwise in a court of law. That's the only thing that matters. Sure, it has inherent risks. But that is the price of freedom.
 
Let's See

If there are 80 Million gun owners in america, a number I seem to remember, and 90% of them aren't responsible enough to own them, then there are 72 million gun owners who aren't responsible enough.

If his statement were true, then I would expect at least 500,000 of us would be shooting ourselves each year. We are not, so I am forced to believe that it is the nitwits who go through life believing that they don't need a gun who shouldn't own them. So bottom line, life has worked out well as those of us responsible enough to own guns do, and those who aren't don't.

I don't see a problem. Leaves more ammo for me.
 
^No, the person said 90% of the population, not 90% of gun owners. But still, good point.
 
A good percentage of Americans is ignorant and gullible, yet we have freedom of speech.

A good percentage of Americans get involved in cults at some point or another, yet we have freedom of religion.

A good percentage of American citizens have no clue about how our government operates, how ecomonics work, much about science or legal philosophy, who John Locke was, or even who Thomas Jefferson was, to say nothing of Alexander Hamilton. Yet they must be allowed to vote, even if they need to have their ballot translated into some obscure dialect only spoken by thirteen members of a lost tribe in the Amazon Basin.

Rights are rights. Self-defense is a human right. When you exercise your rights, you must be held accountable for what you do, though. The right to keep and bear arms does not mean the right to do so without regard to the safety of others, no way, no how.

The solution is clarity about consequences, not the prohibition of actions which are inherently moral.
 
Half the people in the country are below average (think about that), but we all have the same rights. We know that rights have corresponding responsibilities or duties, and we hope that everyone will act responsibly. However, in a free society, people are free to be stupid.

I have SERIOUS doubts about the morals of anyone who says that 90% of the people are too dumb/irresponsible/etc to enjoy basic human rights. That puts them right in the company of Saddam Hussein, Hugo Chavez, etc.
 
I have SERIOUS doubts about the morals of anyone who says that 90% of the people are too dumb/irresponsible/etc to enjoy basic human rights. That puts them right in the company of Saddam Hussein, Hugo Chavez, etc.
Click to expand...

Well said, enfield!

The sad, sorry, simple truth of the matter is that although we abolished aristocracy in America, there's no shortage of people who feel called upon to pose as self-appointed aristocrats whose responsibility is to save us commoners from ourselves. Some of them are leftist extremists. Some are just old-fashioned snobs.

They're people who'd probably benefit from a few years' state slavery in some "progressive" third world hell hole such as North Korea or communist China. If they ever had to live under a self-appointed aristocracy, maybe they'd mellow out a bit.
 
Web said:
"It's just that 90% of the population aren't responsible enough to own them."

That's what someone said to me, and I wasn't sure how to answer. I wasn't even sure I disagreed. Maybe not with 90% but at least some percentage of the population are definitely not resposible enough to own them, even though they have the right. Still, I know something's wrong with that thinking. Tell me what you think.
Click to expand...


I like triple-Oh-seven's response, but I would also point out the vast VAST number of people who, despite being far too irresponsible to drive an automobile, are allowed to do so. Of course, they are completely unsupervised as they drive, and the only thing stopping them from doing reckless, dangerous and deadly things with those vehicles is their own conscience and whim.

Mention the fact that if someone simply decided to "snap" with a vehicle, there are any number of places in which they could kill three, five, twelve people at one single shot -- and how hard is it to miss your target with a six-foot-wide bullet? Or how about the fact that all that separates you from a suicidal/murderous psycho in a car is a double yellow line that has no physical power to keep him from crossing it and hitting you head-on? And he doesn't even have to have murderous intent to cross those lines: he could just be incompetent, or even just distracted!


-blackmind
 
Web said:
"It's just that 90% of the population aren't responsible enough to own them."

That's what someone said to me, and I wasn't sure how to answer. I wasn't even sure I disagreed. Maybe not with 90% but at least some percentage of the population are definitely not resposible enough to own them, even though they have the right. Still, I know something's wrong with that thinking. Tell me what you think.
Click to expand...

You should disagree, that person whats the world to play by his or her rules.
 
His statement is an invitation for "prior restraint", disallowing that someone speak because they may say something defamatory.

Prior restraint is not allowed for speech; it's not allowed for arms.

BTW, if you are concerned about responsible use of arms, join the NRA and help promote training. As well, education is something we at THR have been concerned with since Day One.:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top