Originally posted by cdtm
Alright, even if I accept that as 100% true, the main question when it comes to really anything in the US isn't how it affects statistics. The question is whether individual liberties should be curtailed despite them.Let's say we found out car accidents dropped 1000% by banning alcohol. I'd still argue against a ban on alcohol, for the reason that I believe individual freedoms trump just about anything. I mean, you don't know "I" will get into a drunken accident. Any more than you know I'd use a gun in an act of violence, or a suicide, or much of anything else.
So why should my freedom be curtailed, because someone somewhere will do all the wrong things? That shouldn't be my responsibility, and I shouldn't need to pay for it.
You may call this selfish, and it is. But you must also realize your logic can be applied on multiple levels for multiple issues.
Would you be ok giving up driving a personal vehicle for the environment?
Would you be ok with a ban on snack junk foods or soda's, for health purposes?
I mean, where is the line between what's good for the community, and what's right for the individual?
That's a great question. And probably only one that really should us any pause for enacting proper gun control.
Here's the thing though.
You assume you must always outright ban these things and that is an extreme point.
You bring up drunk driving but you're also ignoring that we have laws in place to prevent these things from happening. We also implemented things like Uber and Lyft into our social constructs to make drinking and driving much less likely.
So you can talk about those topics but you must do so with the idea that we are actively limiting those ideas as you speak right now.
So it's not a fair comparison because if we were doing the same things with guns they would already be much more restricted.
Also just because you want to be selfish doesn't you should be allowed to be selfish.
Generally it's a balance of how much your personal decisions effect the lives of others. And here is the thing guns to me are not a necessary part of our social lives. We should be limiting them.
Also it's not always about limiting personal freedoms as it about providing better alternatives. For instance with driving. I would totally take public transport if it were more reliable.
And in cities where that is the case you tend to see less pollution from personal vehicles.
We are also trying to limit the amount of the pollution by making vehicles more efficient.
So there is a lot to unpack in your statement but the simple answer to me is that guns don't fall into most other things.
They aren't vital for people to function. They aren't generally limited to only safe harm and by actively making them more widespread they actively create problems.
To me the best solution would be limiting guns to shooting sports and if your job requires one. All of which would need a healthy investment from the person wanting to participate.
Also the problem with comparing guns directly to alcohol like most drugs is that drugs are easy to black manufacture thus circumventing the issue. It's much more effective to legalize them and offer free counseling services to deal with the negative impacts of them.
Guns don't fall into that category. Most people don't take guns and develops an physical dependency on them. They aren't easy to manufacture at home. They require materials that can be made harder to get then what it takes to make alcohol and drugs.
There is no shooting withdrawal symptoms from guns as well.