Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, without government, traffic accidents would skyrocket.
Please. Private roadowners would set rules for use of their roads, including what side to drive on.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. The owners of the road make the rules not the owner of the car. What the driver does effects his fellow road users which is why he has rules to follow. A gun owner has rules to follow for the same reason. When and where he discharges his weapon, where he keeps it, how he safeguards against its misuse can have consequenses for other people. I am of the opinion that those rules should be more stringent than they are.
[ QUOTE ]
And yet, malpractice still exists. Amazing. I thought government certification would prevent it!?!
[/ QUOTE ]
You don't think it is prevented? An interesting experiment - two societies, one with regulation over medical matters and one without - which would be healthier? Where would you rather live?
[ QUOTE ]
Most legislators are lawyers. Among the biggest contributors to political campaigns (in the US, at least) are (you guessed it) lawyers.
[/ QUOTE ]
And from this you deduce that most laws are frivolous?
[/ QUOTE ]
Too hard to quote this, so I'll answer each of your sections:
1)Wait a second. You are advocating stricter rules involving the possession of a firearm, not the use. Yet, in this example, you are doing the very opposite. I might be willing to listen to stricter rules regarding improper usage of a firearm(though I'm not sure how much stricter we can get), but your example does nothing to gain support for stricter rules regarding the possession of guns.
2)Well...in a mild version, we have that experiment in place: The USA and the UK. Is there any proof that socialized medicine works better than privatized medicine? I would guess not, I don't know for sure...can someone provide evidence?
3)I would certainly argue that most laws that are preventative in nature are frivolous, and typically, disastrous(prohibition, drug laws).
|