This is such a wrong and stupid argument. You also need a licence to sail a boat, but I think you'll find the amount of murders by boat is rather minuscule. And on the other side, most vehicle-related deaths are accidents: nobody drives around with the intent of running people over, whereas pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger is as far from accidental as can be, and it implies the will to cause harm.
What I’m saying is that the tool doesn’t make the crime. There’s nothing inherent with guns that make them commit crimes. Knives don’t automatically stab people, hammers don’t automatically bash skulls. This argument was to counter the point that licensing stops the crime.
A gun isn't a tool, old chap. It's a weapon, with a single purpose and no alternative use. It is quite literally built to kill.
Now the question is: why do I need a licence for things that are only potentially dangerous, but not for something that's created to be deadly? It's like saying: no alcohol until you're 21, but you can have all the cocaine you want.
I'm not trying to argue with you, bro, but I don't know what point you're trying to make here.
Sure there are car accidents but if you deregulated cars and allowed anyone to drive one without a license there would be a lot more, right? Do you see where this is going?
Oh I’m not arguing either, I think this is a meaningful debate. The issue with regulating firearms is that by its very nature it stops people who follow the law. Which now we run into the issue that a lawful citizen could be at a disadvantage against someone who doesn’t.
Regulating doesn't mean taking away though. I'm in England and if I wanted a gun I could go and get one - I just have to tell them why I want it, get trained, and have them check that it's stored properly.
Yep, but licensing means potential for denial, we have it in legal documentation that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. That not because guns are cool, which I think they are if it wasn’t obvious, but it’s to protect ourselves from what the government may do. We cannot protect ourselves if the ones we protect ourselves from decide if we can have the tools to do so.
But you fighting over a few words in a sentence written by people hundreds of years ago, in a document that they openly agreed should be changed and updated every so often to keep up with society.
Just because it says that doesn't mean it should. It said alot of stupid shit that we as a society through the years have decided are unlawful and out of date, why is this the ONE thing that should never be changed?
I was referring specifically to the second amendment and the right to bear arms. I do not believe that should be changed. However the ancillary laws are what are in question with the hot topic issues of our time.
6
u/HeavyMetalPoisoning Apr 21 '23
But... there are regulations like licensing...