I take from your statement you would ban guns entirely. Am I interpreting that correctly?
I would prefer to live in a society where no one outside of law enforcement is permitted to own a gun, but I live in a country with a constitution, history, and circumstances which make that a practical impossibility. So if I had it my way I would put in place a number of restrictions to include expanded background checks, waiting periods, assault weapons ban, extended magazine ban, etc.
Stabbing is to high risk of losing the fight.
I'm far more concerned that everyone involved and even those who were not live.
An intelligent murderer will just turn to things like poison, which could affect innocent bystanders.
I've never understood how this argument makes sense to anyone.
If we were to ban guns, how many gun homicides every year do you seriously believe would be replaced by poisonings? It's the same logic as me arguing that we should stop locking our doors at night because someone can just break into a window.
Besides that, many guns are counterfeit and imported from South America. We also have the ability to make what's known as "zip guns". So you can't really eliminate access to fire arms. Best you can do is disarm people who previously had the legal ability to defend themselves.
Two different problems here.
The fact that technology has gotten to the point where a gun can be manufactured at home is not a reason to throw our hands up in the air. It's a problem we can solve if we want to. It reminds me of the freak out in the wake of Napster, saying the music industry was toast. Never happened because we decided to do something about it.
The second is the idea that all we can do is disarm law abiding citizens, which is a nonsense talking point. No one is proposing we pass laws telling criminals they're not allowed to be criminals. What were talking about are laws that restrict gun dealers, which are overwhelmingly law abiding citizens. Criminals still have to attain the guns, if there are less of them out there and more hoops to jump through them that will reduce the number of "bad guys" who get their hands on them.
But beyond that we also have to remember that every criminal starts off as a law abiding citizen, so this notion that we can somehow distinguish who in our society is a good guy vs a bad guy is a very childish way of looking at things. It is only after the crime has already been committed that any of this comes into play, by that point it's too late.
That's because you are using the incorrect definition of rights. When people speak of rights. At least people who have studied political philosophy, they are narrowing that definition to mean "negative rights" mostly because what philosophers refer to as positive rights, are really just ways to restrict the negative rights of others.
There is nothing incorrect about my usage of the term and none of this is relavant to my point.
A negative right is a right not to be subjected to the actions of another while a positive right is the right to be subjected to the actions of another. The right to not be shot is a negative right, the right to trial by jury is a positive right. Neither is more legitimate than the other.
My point is that one's positive right to carry a gun conflicts with the negative right of everyone around them to be safe from a potential flying bullet. You can disagree with that statement, but there is nothing unreasonable about that.
