Quote Originally Posted by PowerWizard View Post
Yes, I can defend myself. And the probability that people will shoot me in my own country is lower if not anyone can own a gun. I feel myself safe in this country, and I don't need a gun to "protect" myself. I never was in a situation like that, neither anyone I personally know. So your logic is flawed.
My statement was: "you cannot defend yourself as well without a gun" which is true. Whether you feel you are in danger is not the issue--neither do I. We are discussing a principle. If there was one murder a year in the US the principle would remain.



Quote Originally Posted by PowerWizard
No I am not, where did you get that? I am perfectly free, and I don't need a gun to feel "freer", in fact it would just be a burden. And by supporting a policy that allows anyone to own a gun you compromise the basic human right to live of many other humans. Which is higher in the priority of human rights than this "right to bear arms" 18th century nonsense.
You have the right to self defense, and that requires tools to be effective. If you give up tools, you cannot defend yourself as well, thus you are compromising one of your freedoms.

The issue with individual rights vs collective rights has been discussed before, so I'll just make a comparison.

1) People have the right to life
2) Alcohol being legal leads to drunk driving accidents
3) Therefore, alcohol should be banned

Do you agree with the conclusion?