What's your position on a single citizen owning multiple weapons?
For sake of the question, assume I don't mean a couple of hand-guns, but instead mean (say) 8 assault rifles.
Why would I have any real opinion on it? I'm mildly supportive, in a general sense.
Why do you insist on only framing gun use in this one rare type of situation? A handgun bought for "self-defense" is much more likely to be used in the suicide or accidental death of the owner or a family member than it is to be used to attack "miscreants".
Because that is the most common time it matters, I could say we need all the guns we can get for the purpose of someday overthrowing a tyrannical government and be just as justified.
If you support successful bans on guns for personal defense you take active responsibility for every crime that could have been prevented if the victim had a gun.
Do you think this is true generally?
- wearing a ski mask in a bank could "save your person": if someone's trying to kill you and is waiting in front of the bank, wearing a mask could stop them from identifying you.
Wearing a ski mask could save your life, and there is no legitimate reason to broadly deny the wearing of ski masks. I agree. Not being able to wear them in banks is a narrow restriction.
- being naked in public could "save your person": a mugger could see that you're naked, assume you're crazy, and decide not to mess with you.
I don't see why I should be against public nudity regardless of its safety repercussions.
flamethrowers or grenades could "save your person" if you were surrounded by a large group of attackers that were far enough away.
See nothing wrong with either.
- spring-loaded sword blades that pop out from under your car could "save your person". It's
a real anti-carjacking device from South Africa.
That is frickin awesome, I want one.
- running red lights could "save your person". Sitting at a red light makes you more vulnerable to carjackers. In fact, in Detroit, the cops will look the other way if you run a red light at night in a bad area; just slow down, check for cross traffic as best you can, and drive on through.
This is the second on your list of narrow restrictions as opposed to broad bans. That said, even as I address your scenarios, I agree with the sentiment. After consideration I don't believe that the statement I made accurately covers all situations.
Your scenarios show oversimplified black-and-white thinking.
They are somewhat so, but that was the point. Simplify it down to the essence, if a gun takes a life or I refuse to own one, I have the responsibility of the choice; if it is denied and needed it is the responsibility of the denier. If a law, the government, and, if a democracy, you and me.
They also ignore the effects of guns on others.
Are guns like the ring of sauron now, that they effect others? Do they whisper of the dark lord's promises and convert good witches and wizards to dark arts? Guns don't effect people, people effect people. I feel like that is similar to something else I've heard...
I also notice that your "scenario A" gives a big middle finger to the issue of firearm suicide.
How so?
I thought I had "raised complaint". I pointed out that to actually neutralize a threat to you with a gun when it becomes a life-and-death matter, you need extensive training and practice.
I don't see how proposing that people are incapable of utilizing a necessary tool is the same as saying it isn't necessary.
I'm not sure why we'd consider someone who's carrying around a gun and brandishing at people "peaceful".
That is an odd qualifier that was never discussed before and makes little sense.
Regardless, which of your other rights do you think should be forfeit if your neighbours fear you enough?
None. If I am actively imperiling their lives? I'd say I can't think of one that I retain against their attempts to stop me.
