Soleron said:
badgenome said:
Soleron said:
Self-defence is consistent with "only be used to injure people". Every other use can be applied for. It's not restricting anyone's right to possess a gun except for the purpose of wanting to kill people with it.
Nerve gas can presumably be used in self-defence as well.
|
I was stunned for a second that you really don't see a difference between nerve gas and a handgun, but I forgot that self-defense wasn't considered legitimate in modern Britain beyond perhaps bleeding on your assailant (though not to excess). Cultural difference, I suppose.
|
If this was Mad Max I'd agree I guess. But the chances you'll even be in a self-defence situation are extremely low and I don't think the accidental deaths are worth it. And I don't view it as a freedom issue because the other uses you'd be able to apply for.
Also I don't understand why normal police in the US are allowed to have guns.
|
Just last year thousands of British were forced to watch their homes and businesses burn to the ground because they couldn't do anything against oppurtunistic, thieving rioters.
