“If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot,” she said, laughing. “I probably should not have said that. My staff will deal with that later.”
“If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot,” she said, laughing. “I probably should not have said that. My staff will deal with that later.”
You are saying it makes no difference because the logic is the same for both sides, and km saying thats the point.
The real problem is that people do not evaluate guns appropriately, or themselves.
One half is regulation: “Do I think I’m a good gun owner? Of course!”, kind of stuff is wrong, but also a very common comment. Its also the requirement for buying a gun. Like a company that creates its own certification, and then certifies itself as safe.
The other half is a lack of understanding of what owning a gun might mean for the owner, and for this in the house with them, and those in their community. There are situations a gun makes someone safer, but the rest of their family of higher risk, or vice versa. There are also situations where a gun is necessary.
But we don’t honestly talk about this in America. Guns are always good here. Have a problem involving guns? Guns would have solved it for sure. Dont have a gun in your home? What, do you just want your family to get raped and murdered?
The lack of nuance is dizzying sometimes.
It was not my intent to say that, I agree with your overall point that it depends on the context and that in most cases a gun will make things more dangerous rather than more safe.
My point was that using logic that applies to both sides won’t convince anyone who would want to apply it to the other side.