Let's Play "False Dichotomy"!
"Is freedom more important than safety?"
It's stupid to think that those are the choices. And it's extra stupid to not notice the real world results of trading in individual liberty for "government"-provided "security." But for the weak-minded, apparently such a silly false dichotomy is persuasive. Kind of like...
"Children's lives matter more than your right to have a gun!"
Since when are those the choices? How many children has my AR-15 run off and murdered? Oh, none. So the two are unrelated (except that, in the off chance that something really bad happens in my area, I may have the means to stop a psycho and save lives).
But since emotional false dichotomies seems to be the stupid game we're now going to play, does it work both ways?
"Gun control advocates, which is more important, you being allowed to express your opinion, or stopping kittens from being thrown into wood chippers?!?!?!"
How dare you heartless, evil marchers value your opinions more than saving kittens from a horrible death!?
Learn to think, dumbasses.
I am sure most of these shooting events are nothing more that staged false flags. I don't even think people are shot inmost cases I think its all fake.
LOL, people who support gun control are essentially science deniers.
is conflict is complicated, the question should be: what brings less consequences, freedom? or security? In my opinion, upon discovering the answer, a worthy result will be given and, in my opinion, what you have said is very true.
I agree, false dichotomies are the worst.
Noticed a flaw in your corollary argument though
just as valid to say, "on the off chance that a child steals your AR-15 and shoots up the area it'll be there for them to take". You can get into it with me about how well secured your weapon is, etc etc, but this is not a solid point regardless, it's a baised "if then".
Fair enough, although that leads into a discussion of likelihoods and probabilities. Not everything is equally likely. But, at BEST, that leaves the gun-grabbers with the argument: "I want agents of the state to forcibly disarm you, because I don't know what might happen otherwise." They are advocating certain coercion based on a wild guess about a hypothetical.
Very true, which is an area I presume you don't want to veer into with a solid argumental point already in place.
In terms of the hypothetical itself the best thing would be to look at similar situations in history right? I think that'd be the way to go.
if a child steals his Ar15 I hope someone with an AR15 is handy to stop him before it becomes a mass shooting.
If group A has guns, lots of guns and other various devilries and prevents group B from having guns in order to be able to do to goup B whatever the hell they want, then we will start having a real problem with "gun violence"(especially if that group A is religiously perceived as "authority")