(November 30, 2013 at 2:56 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote: One of the things I still fail to understand (as was pointed out in the OP and by numerous others in discussion I have read before), is how a gun is what determines if a society if free or not. This sounds like nothing more than just plain old bad logic. There are plenty of countries where its citizens are free who have either limited access to guns or very strict gun laws, and they are in no danger of losing their freedom.
Freedom is not about an armed society, it is about an informed electorate. If it ever comes down to needing a gun to get your freedom back, it is because you fucked up with your vote.
In any event, in case it isn't obvious, I am pro-legislation and I guess if you must label me, then I am more inclined to be "anti-gun", although I would hesitate to consider myself against them, just against the ease with which one can attain them, the lack of training and accountability that should accompany the operation of something designed to kill, and the fact that there are no inherent restrictions that prevent the mentally unstable (or those who are likely to become mentally unstable) from attaining a firearm.
And while I am inclined to be "pro-gun", I am in general agreement with TheBeardedDude.
It is not a black and white issue, and we should consider what is practical and reasonable.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
