sundin13 said:
So what you are saying is that the individual comes first....except when it doesn't. The problem I have with your argument is that it is entirely arbitrary and subjective. Like, you agree that individual freedom needs to be limited in some circumstances, but the only thing that makes those circumstances fundamentally different than the others is that you kinda feel like drawing a line there and not somewhere else. As soon as you insist that you are willing to throw out massive benefit in the face of a minor cost, you have invalidated all objectivity in your standards unless you advocate for uncontrolled freedom which you have made clear you don't wish to do. This has ceased to be an argument. It is just you talking about how you feel... |
sundin13 said:
"I personally find your opinion to be ridiculous, but that is really all we have here. Your opinion is that you think we should put individual rights above the safety of our citizens. Sure, thousands of people get murdered every year, but that is a small price to pay. Typically when I have discussions with people who are anti-gun control, they aren't quite as honest about the fact that they value guns over lives."
"That said, I think you have realize that this argument is inherently flawed, as it is not upheld as a standard in most areas. Some degree of restriction of individual rights is seen in virtually every aspect of life, including gun ownership. To apply this concept evenly, you would have to remove scores of laws which few people would oppose such as restricting firearm access to those with criminal convictions or mental illness, or even removing things like speed limits. Both of which are restrictions of individual freedoms which benefit the collective so I have to say that your final point is far too reductive to be of value."
What I'm saying, is what you were saying, and what you're now saying, is what I said was arbitrary and subjective, which can only mean... WTF?