Well,
I did some reading as promised, but in the long run my opinion on the
issue remains as it was. Even if it's true that owning a gun puts one
at greater risk for harm, which is self-evident by virtue of what a
gun is: a potentially deadly instrument, that's simply not a
justifiable reason to divest a person of their right to own a gun for
the purpose of self defense. I'm a professional cook. I work with
fire and sharp knives. Common sense tells me that I run a higher risk
of burns and cuts than a person who doesn't work with fire and sharp
knives. ?
You
say a person may "feel" safer, but in reality not be. So
what? Who are you, or I, to deny a person their right to "feeling"
safer in a dangerous environment? Furthermore, and much more
importantly, people are different. Person X, who is well-trained in
gun safety, will be safer than Person Y, who hasn't bothered. Citing
stats that show any number of horrible things happening when people
get hold of deadly weapons changes nothing when it comes to the
fundamental issue of rights.
Having
the right to do something, like own a gun, or eat at MacDonalds every
day, does not carry with it any guarantee of safety or wellbeing, nor
should it. And if I defend a person's right to own a gun, or to eat
at MacDonalds every day, it doesn't mean I am giving either thing my
stamp of approval.
Ayn
Rand made a similar point when she brought up the subject of
pornography. She found porn repellent and disgusting, but she was
willing to defend a person's right to consume it. Defending a
person's right to do something is neither a moral sanction nor a
stamp of approval. I hate to repeat this but it bears repeating,
because it's frequently forgotten.
Gun
ownership entails a great deal of personal responsibility. Some
people are simply not responsible. Do you suggest that we limit a
responsible person's rights by virtue of the fact that irresponsible
people exist? Perhaps you and I are vastly different people.
No comments:
Post a Comment