Please read again. If that were my understanding, I'd've omitted “not” somewhere in my apple story wouldn't I?
My issue is that from a self-defense perspective guns are not that useful: as Brennus hinted at those who you would trust with a gun are those who would think twice about using it, but the situations wherein a gun is truly useful mean those people won't get that opportunity because the other type doesn't. In other situations, guns are overkill --literally. Much more useful to go on a self-defense course if you feel you need it.
EDIT: I should add that I apply the logic of “time and a place for everything” on guns. This leads me to think that you can play with guns to your hearts content, but not en plein public: that hobby does not belong there. So I strongly disagree with the notion that the “right to bear arms” implies the right to do that wherever you please.
Really? Or perhaps it goes without saying that self-defense should be completely and utterly necessary, that there is a basic guarantee of your safety?Americans tend to mistrust government and have more faith in their fellow citizens.
Evidently those in Europe tend to put faith in their governments but distrust their neighbors.
In my experience you help other people out about as much as other people help you out. But then again, that's small things. The help from government is a completely different relationship. Mainly because the government does not expect something equal in return; government is like a charity here. Incidentally, that is the basis for this part of government.In my experience your fellow citizens are far more likely to help you without seeking power over you than is any government.
Don't mistake that for the other part of government which says “thou shalt not murder” to you: that part is the bit where your current and past society tells you what is and more often what is not accepted behaviour. But I take it you don't actually have a problem with that.
Bookmarks