"freedoms"; what a concept, freedom to what exactly? freedom to easily kill I am guessing... because that being the case you should allow the posetion and creation of nuclear weapons by any USA citizen; those things give a lot of freedom to kill.
Funny you mention my country; because just here in my City, the 3° biggest of South America, the amount of murders have reduced significantly since the ban of weapons in the streets; its called Bogota.
And you can keep playing to the hypothesis that someday you will need a revolution and guns will be useful, in real life in the present there is just people dying because you have associated your national identity with abusing gunpowder.
There is nothing positive about guns; your group illusion of "self-protection" is quickly diminish by the fact that legal guns many times end up in the hands of the criminals, provoking accidents or in hands of mentally unqualified people... so even 1 death is enough.
>There is nothing positive about guns; your group illusion of "self-protection" is quickly diminish by the fact that legal guns many times end up in the hands of the criminals, provoking accidents or in hands of mentally unqualified people... so even 1 death is enough.
The idea that "even 1 death is enough" to take away a basic human right is just plain idiotic. How many times have assaults and murders been deterred by a gun? That doesn't show up in homicide statistics, does it?
How many times a gun has ended in murderer's hands after being bought legally? That doesn't show up in homicide statistics either, does it?
Human rights as popularly known are the global rights established by the UN and I am pretty sure they don't mention guns. Or it must be a list of human rights you created yourself that I am not aware of.
>How many times a gun has ended in murderer's hands after being bought legally? That doesn't show up in homicide statistics either, does it?
Eh, actually they show up in homicide statistics as, you know, homicides.
>Human rights as popularly known are the global rights established by the UN and I am pretty sure they don't mention guns.
The UN has no particular legitimacy in the recognition of rights. Human rights are intrinsic, so to a certain extent they're subjective. Clearly you don't believe the right to self defense is a human right, but I think most people would disagree with you.
> Eh, actually they show up in homicide statistics as, you know, homicides.
Just like you have your own human rights maybe this is from your own statistics too because the cdc.gov and other recognized institutions show nothing about the legality of the weapons used in murderess.
Human rights are the rights that should be respected by anyone; if you need some sort of self-defense by definition you are taking actions derived from a violation of your rights; so your self-defense is already out of any kind of human rights paradigm.
And self-defense is one of the most ambiguous concepts there are; if Palestinians could use an atomic bomb in Israel it would be self-defense? I think it would be, but it also would be wrong, very wrong.
USA is the developed country with the highest death rate by gunshots[1]; as much as you like to believe your own words data is not at your side.
>Human rights are the rights that should be respected by anyone; if you need some sort of self-defense by definition you are taking actions derived from a violation of your rights; so your self-defense is already out of any kind of human rights paradigm.
There's no logic in that statement. I have a right to self defense, and for the state to deprive me of the means of self defense is a violation of my rights.
>USA is the developed country with the highest death rate by gunshots
Irrelevant. I don't care about suicides or legitimate shoots. For the purposes of this discussion only murders matter.
