|
At least one fundamental flaw with having this particular argument (as Undertoad has already pointed out) is that we are arguing about very different parts of the world.
First, jag (and, to a lesser extent, sludge), my right to carry arms is fundamentally different from yours. In the United States, we get (in theory, at least) to carry weapons for self-defense. The government doesn't get to take that right away (again, in theory). The Australian government doesn't work like that. That's fine if that's the way they think their citizens want their country.
But...
you still have yet to prove to me that guns are inherently bad. You say they are bad because they are designed to kill. I say they are good for exactly the same reason. My argument can be stated thus:
If someone wants to hurt me or mine, I will stop them any way necessary.
We have come to an impasse that we will not be able to surmount, two radically different ways of looking at the same thing. I have something for you to mull over though:
A gun is neither inherently good or bad. It is simply a tool. Yes, the primary purpose of that tool is to make stuff disappear in a wicked awesome conflagration of smoke, fire, and lead. But, I put it to both of you to prove that a gun is inherently bad. I will already state that I cannot prove a gun is inherently good. It seems that the intentions of the user of that tool are what matters.
*Discuss*
__________________
Don't Panic
|